Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Federal Court throws out FEC rules that allowed super-PAC donors to remain anonymous. At least now we'll get to learn the names of our government's owners   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 119
    More: Spiffy, Fe C, blood donors  
•       •       •

3149 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Apr 2012 at 3:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



119 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-01 12:46:28 PM  
that's gonna cause some very sweaty moments for big campaign doners. I'd love to see some hard data on who's donating to whom and for how much.
 
2012-04-01 12:55:26 PM  
I'm OK with this

/delighted, in fact
//this could lead to a big uptick in popcorn sales/consumption, too
 
2012-04-01 12:57:43 PM  
i.ytimg.com

Good. Good.
 
2012-04-01 01:09:56 PM  
this is really gonna piss off a lot of Republicans. might make a couple/few democrats nervous too...but I suspect the corporate types won't like this ruling one bit.
 
2012-04-01 01:21:51 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm OK with this

/delighted, in fact
//this could lead to a big uptick in popcorn sales/consumption, too


I think it's great - don't care who it makes nervous either - if you have a donor you want to keep anonymous, maybe you shouldn't be taking money from them.

/and now we find out who the big anonymous donor to the Colbert SuperPAC is...
 
2012-04-01 01:30:15 PM  
They'll file a temporary injunction against disclosure and take it to the USSC, which will predictably rule in the favor of the fewer laws there are the better and probably say that free speech is only free when nobody can know you're the one saying it.
 
2012-04-01 01:30:31 PM  
I'm okay with this.
 
2012-04-01 01:31:06 PM  

GAT_00: They'll file a temporary injunction against disclosure and take it to the USSC, which will predictably rule in the favor of the fewer laws there are the better and probably say that free speech is only free when nobody can know you're the one saying it.


that's ok - I'd like to see this one actually get to SCOTUS. it would be interesting to see how they rule on it.
 
2012-04-01 01:35:24 PM  
Yeah, I'm not sure what the principled objection to this is. Even if you think this is a form of free speech, you don't have a general right to anonymous speech, as far as I know.
 
2012-04-01 01:38:35 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: They'll file a temporary injunction against disclosure and take it to the USSC, which will predictably rule in the favor of the fewer laws there are the better and probably say that free speech is only free when nobody can know you're the one saying it.

that's ok - I'd like to see this one actually get to SCOTUS. it would be interesting to see how they rule on it.


You know how they will rule. Fewer laws are better, so a law requiring disclosure should be struck down.
 
2012-04-01 01:44:58 PM  

GAT_00: You know how they will rule. Fewer laws are better, so a law requiring disclosure should be struck down.


well...I have a very strong suspicion about how they will rule, but that doesn't make it reality. I'd like to force SCOTUS to go through the motions and sit there and TELL us that we the people have no rights and that corporations do. then make sure that SCOTUS puts that in writing and posts it up around the country.

it'll help come time for the revolution.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-04-01 01:46:34 PM  
This is a district court decision. The DC Circuit will issue its decision in late 2013. If the FEC loses it will petition the Supreme Court and be denied in early 2014. At that point the FEC will consider how to gut the ruling or whether to enforce the revised disclosure laws. I predict expanded disclosure to start after the 2014 election.

In the meantime big spenders will be working out ways to hide the names of important donors under the weight of others. If there is not a segregated electioneering account the organization has to list every donor for every purpose. For a single issue PAC there is no distinction. What if my company buys cute puppies for sad-eyed orphans and also runs attack ads against John Boehner? By listing all donors for both purposes I have at least created plausible deniability.
 
2012-04-01 01:47:19 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: You know how they will rule. Fewer laws are better, so a law requiring disclosure should be struck down.

well...I have a very strong suspicion about how they will rule, but that doesn't make it reality. I'd like to force SCOTUS to go through the motions and sit there and TELL us that we the people have no rights and that corporations do. then make sure that SCOTUS puts that in writing and posts it up around the country.

it'll help come time for the revolution.


There is no disclosure requirement in the 1st Amendment.

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.
 
2012-04-01 01:49:31 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: They'll file a temporary injunction against disclosure and take it to the USSC, which will predictably rule in the favor of the fewer laws there are the better and probably say that free speech is only free when nobody can know you're the one saying it.

that's ok - I'd like to see this one actually get to SCOTUS. it would be interesting to see how they rule on it.


At first blush, it almost seems like they would need to evaluate some right to privacy issues perhaps. If that's the case, it could be very interesting. Then again, I'm not a lawyer and this is a Fark politics thread, so, to alleviate any signs of too much seriousness in my post, as that's not my style, here's a picture of Fartbongo flying an X-Wing.

i595.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-01 01:51:38 PM  

GAT_00: There is no disclosure requirement in the 1st Amendment.


there's also nothing that says those donor names have to stay hidden either.

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.

good luck with that.
 
2012-04-01 02:00:32 PM  

Weaver95: good luck with that.


It's what the USSC will say and it's what you should be saying too. What I keep trying to point out to you is what your political philosophy in action actually looks like.
 
2012-04-01 02:12:07 PM  
img31.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-01 02:18:06 PM  
Munchma Qoochi was behind it all
 
2012-04-01 02:29:55 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: They'll file a temporary injunction against disclosure and take it to the USSC, which will predictably rule in the favor of the fewer laws there are the better and probably say that free speech is only free when nobody can know you're the one saying it.

that's ok - I'd like to see this one actually get to SCOTUS. it would be interesting to see how they rule on it.


They already did, 8-1, in Part III of the Citizens United decision. You have no right to anonymity.
 
2012-04-01 02:43:27 PM  

omnibus_necanda_sunt: [img31.imageshack.us image 625x432]


Is that a target or a surveyor's mark?
 
2012-04-01 02:45:45 PM  

vygramul: They already did, 8-1, in Part III of the Citizens United decision. You have no right to anonymity.


in that case, then what's the problem? open those records up and lets see 'em!
 
2012-04-01 02:46:52 PM  
So what happens if the SCOTUS rules that there must be disclosure? Since they've already ruled that money=speech in Citizens United, what's to stop the Feds (or a state) from using this new ruling to say "OK, any political speech whatsoever must be accompanied by a verifiable ID of the individual speaking"? It seems like a rational step, at least in this political climate.

Don't get me wrong -- I think there should be full and complete donor disclosure, because I don't happen to believe that corporations should have full free-speech rights. Personally, I'd like a system where there was about a $250 limit per person, per candidate (including the candidate him/herself), another $250 limit to parties OR PACs, and absolutely zero money allowed from corporations or unions -- combined with a robust public funding of every candidate equally.
 
2012-04-01 02:48:21 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Since they've already ruled that money=speech in Citizens United, what's to stop the Feds (or a state) from using this new ruling to say "OK, any political speech whatsoever must be accompanied by a verifiable ID of the individual speaking"? It seems like a rational step, at least in this political climate.


The very idea that money = speech makes so little sense, I have a hard time understand how any court could rule rationally using that construct. So who the fark knows.
 
2012-04-01 02:50:59 PM  

Weaver95: vygramul: They already did, 8-1, in Part III of the Citizens United decision. You have no right to anonymity.

in that case, then what's the problem? open those records up and lets see 'em!


There was no legislation to remove the FEC rules. That's what the DISCLOSE ACT was supposed to do.
 
2012-04-01 02:52:38 PM  

DamnYankees: dahmers love zombie: Since they've already ruled that money=speech in Citizens United, what's to stop the Feds (or a state) from using this new ruling to say "OK, any political speech whatsoever must be accompanied by a verifiable ID of the individual speaking"? It seems like a rational step, at least in this political climate.

The very idea that money = speech makes so little sense, I have a hard time understand how any court could rule rationally using that construct. So who the fark knows.


It made sense back when there wasn't a crowding-out problem. I could spend money to print up flyers expressing my opinion, and the government couldn't regulate money to keep me from doing it. But with electronic communications like TV and so on result in money now crowding out people with less money, and we haven't adapted.
 
2012-04-01 02:54:11 PM  
Just get the fark rid of Super PACs. It's a democracy killer. And democracy is already on life support.
 
2012-04-01 02:54:31 PM  

dahmers love zombie: So what happens if the SCOTUS rules that there must be disclosure? Since they've already ruled that money=speech in Citizens United


Well, the SCOTUS ruled that you don't have a right to anonymity, but that's different from saying your identity MUST be disclosed. I am having trouble seeing how such a case would even get to the Court.
 
2012-04-01 02:55:12 PM  

DamnYankees: I have a hard time understand how any court could rule rationally using that construct.


Thank FSM they keep surprising us, eh? :/
 
2012-04-01 02:56:42 PM  

vygramul: It made sense back when there wasn't a crowding-out problem.


I'm not sure if ever made sense then, either. The issue isn't really crowding out, so much as the ability to give someone else money as a means of expression. That never, ever made any sense, and still doesn't.
 
2012-04-01 03:05:45 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Just get the fark rid of Super PACs. It's a democracy killer. And democracy is already on life support.


Only happen with a Constitutional Amendment - something people are working on but not likely to happen.
 
2012-04-01 03:07:20 PM  

DamnYankees: vygramul: It made sense back when there wasn't a crowding-out problem.

I'm not sure if ever made sense then, either. The issue isn't really crowding out, so much as the ability to give someone else money as a means of expression. That never, ever made any sense, and still doesn't.


I'd have to do some research, but I think the original context was spending money couldn't be limited, or you could keep someone like Franklin from printing his newsletter. The natural progression was that you didn't have the talent to do so but the candidate did, so you gave him money to do the speaking for you. Ergo, giving money = speech.
 
2012-04-01 03:09:06 PM  

GAT_00:

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.


So basically having your campaign financed by the Iranian government is ok, amirite?
 
2012-04-01 03:12:35 PM  

DamnYankees: dahmers love zombie: Since they've already ruled that money=speech in Citizens United, what's to stop the Feds (or a state) from using this new ruling to say "OK, any political speech whatsoever must be accompanied by a verifiable ID of the individual speaking"? It seems like a rational step, at least in this political climate.

The very idea that money = speech makes so little sense, I have a hard time understand how any court could rule rationally using that construct. So who the fark knows.


Separate but equal? SCOTUS has made farked-up rulings before.
 
2012-04-01 03:17:42 PM  

doyner: GAT_00:

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.

So basically having your campaign financed by the Iranian government is ok, amirite?


I believe you missed the point I was making.
 
2012-04-01 03:22:07 PM  

GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00:

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.

So basically having your campaign financed by the Iranian government is ok, amirite?

I believe you missed the point I was making.


I believe you missed me agreeing with you.
 
2012-04-01 03:22:25 PM  

Weaver95: that's gonna cause some very sweaty moments for big campaign doners. I'd love to see some hard data on who's donating to whom and for how much.


I'd guess a lot of the big ones will be something like "2012 Trust 10B1A"
 
2012-04-01 03:22:37 PM  

Weaver95: this is really gonna piss off a lot of Republicans. might make a couple/few democrats nervous too...but I suspect the corporate types won't like this ruling one bit.


It should be interesting to see if and how this can be appealed.
 
2012-04-01 03:25:13 PM  

vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: It made sense back when there wasn't a crowding-out problem.

I'm not sure if ever made sense then, either. The issue isn't really crowding out, so much as the ability to give someone else money as a means of expression. That never, ever made any sense, and still doesn't.

I'd have to do some research, but I think the original context was spending money couldn't be limited, or you could keep someone like Franklin from printing his newsletter. The natural progression was that you didn't have the talent to do so but the candidate did, so you gave him money to do the speaking for you. Ergo, giving money = speech.


But then wouldn't this logic mean that bribery should not merely be legal, but a constitutionally protected action?
 
2012-04-01 03:25:15 PM  

doyner: GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00:

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.

So basically having your campaign financed by the Iranian government is ok, amirite?

I believe you missed the point I was making.

I believe you missed me agreeing with you.


Hmm. That didn't seem like agreement, but OK. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well into text.
 
2012-04-01 03:25:50 PM  

DamnYankees: vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: It made sense back when there wasn't a crowding-out problem.

I'm not sure if ever made sense then, either. The issue isn't really crowding out, so much as the ability to give someone else money as a means of expression. That never, ever made any sense, and still doesn't.

I'd have to do some research, but I think the original context was spending money couldn't be limited, or you could keep someone like Franklin from printing his newsletter. The natural progression was that you didn't have the talent to do so but the candidate did, so you gave him money to do the speaking for you. Ergo, giving money = speech.

But then wouldn't this logic mean that bribery should not merely be legal, but a constitutionally protected action?


Did we stop talking about PACs?
 
2012-04-01 03:29:37 PM  

GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00:

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.

So basically having your campaign financed by the Iranian government is ok, amirite?

I believe you missed the point I was making.

I believe you missed me agreeing with you.

Hmm. That didn't seem like agreement, but OK. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well into text.


Yeah.

But if you see where I fall on issues in other threads....
 
2012-04-01 03:40:56 PM  

DamnYankees: vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: It made sense back when there wasn't a crowding-out problem.

I'm not sure if ever made sense then, either. The issue isn't really crowding out, so much as the ability to give someone else money as a means of expression. That never, ever made any sense, and still doesn't.

I'd have to do some research, but I think the original context was spending money couldn't be limited, or you could keep someone like Franklin from printing his newsletter. The natural progression was that you didn't have the talent to do so but the candidate did, so you gave him money to do the speaking for you. Ergo, giving money = speech.

But then wouldn't this logic mean that bribery should not merely be legal, but a constitutionally protected action?


Well, that's why the Court consistently ruled that limits were ok. If the candidate has 100,000 donors, each giving the same amount, it's hard to choose one over another in a bribery sense. However, the Roberts Court decided that the previous 100 years of Supreme Courts were wrong. It's pretty egregious. Any conservative who even hints at concerns over stare decisis has no leg to stand on.
 
2012-04-01 03:40:59 PM  

GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00: doyner: GAT_00:

There, that was easy. The rest of it is just Libertarianism: fewer laws are better, so any laws on campaign finance are wrong.

So basically having your campaign financed by the Iranian government is ok, amirite?

I believe you missed the point I was making.

I believe you missed me agreeing with you.

Hmm. That didn't seem like agreement, but OK. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well into text.


Sure. You would say that.
 
2012-04-01 03:41:36 PM  
I'm still in favor of making all politicians wear patches on their work clothes at all time that indicate who their corporate sponsors are. The more money you took, the bigger the patch. Kinda like Nascar. Truth in advertising and all that.

Allowing anonymous SuperPacs is now, was then and forever shall be a shiatty idear.

Good call by the Federal Court is good.

Shout out to Colbert and Stewart for raising awareness on this issue in a funny way.
 
2012-04-01 03:42:35 PM  

GAT_00: DamnYankees: vygramul: DamnYankees: vygramul: It made sense back when there wasn't a crowding-out problem.

I'm not sure if ever made sense then, either. The issue isn't really crowding out, so much as the ability to give someone else money as a means of expression. That never, ever made any sense, and still doesn't.

I'd have to do some research, but I think the original context was spending money couldn't be limited, or you could keep someone like Franklin from printing his newsletter. The natural progression was that you didn't have the talent to do so but the candidate did, so you gave him money to do the speaking for you. Ergo, giving money = speech.

But then wouldn't this logic mean that bribery should not merely be legal, but a constitutionally protected action?

Did we stop talking about PACs?


We're talking about how we got here.
 
2012-04-01 03:43:23 PM  

Weaver95: that's gonna cause some very sweaty moments for big campaign doners. I'd love to see some hard data on who's donating to whom and for how much.


big, sweaty doner:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-01 03:46:17 PM  
I believe this was one of the suggestions included in the concurring opinions written for the Citizens United ruling. Barring groups of people from advocacy is a violation of free speech, but that doesn't mean that they have a right to be entirely anonymous. I wonder if this will actually change the ads, or if they will still be "brought to you by Freedom Democracy and Apple Pie for the Children and Jesus Political Action Committee" and then require the listener to go digging on some website to find the actual list. If that's the case, I don't see this changing much in the real world.
 
2012-04-01 03:48:14 PM  

GAT_00: They'll file a temporary injunction against disclosure and take it to the USSC, which will predictably rule in the favor of the fewer laws there are the better and probably say that free speech is only free when nobody can know you're the one saying it whatever the Tea Party wants the rule to be.


Fixed
 
2012-04-01 03:49:09 PM  

Shaggy_C: I believe this was one of the suggestions included in the concurring opinions written for the Citizens United ruling. Barring groups of people from advocacy is a violation of free speech, but that doesn't mean that they have a right to be entirely anonymous. I wonder if this will actually change the ads, or if they will still be "brought to you by Freedom Democracy and Apple Pie for the Children and Jesus Political Action Committee" and then require the listener to go digging on some website to find the actual list. If that's the case, I don't see this changing much in the real world.


Just having MSNBC look into it and let us know would be good enough for me. At LEAST we would know if some Chinese Government reps were injecting money.
 
2012-04-01 03:51:53 PM  

LockeOak: big, sweaty doner:


I laughed.

/pass the tzatziki sauce...
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report