And we've got 32 days left.

I supposed that's one way to get an economy moving...

I'm still kind of at a loss as to why the Democrats allowed republican agents to be seated on the SC.

Duh.

HotWingConspiracy: I'm still kind of at a loss as to why the Democrats allowed republican agents to be seated on the SC.


Lack of backbone?

Well, that is certainly interesting information.

Tax the PACs.

Corporations are spending more on lobbying than in taxes might as well go where the fish are.

This isn't anything new. Politics has been about organizations battling each other for superiority over electing candidates for at least 35 years now. And big business has been winning that battle basically every time.

quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

No spectating without popcorn...

The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Tax all revenue from political television ads equally...at 99% of gross.

So, at what point do we throw in the towel and allow the money people behind these superpacs to start open bidding on politicians - slave auction style?

The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Prolly hafta change a law or two.

HotWingConspiracy: I'm still kind of at a loss as to why the Democrats allowed republican agents to be seated on the SC.

You realize they get paid either way, right? This isn't political prize fighting, it's political theatre for the underclass. As long as you guys cut this OWS bullshiat out everything will chug along like poorly written community theatre.

If anybody is wondering, the average state senate district in Wisconsin is about 173,000 people.

For comparison's sake, the average Congressional district is 646,946 people.

173k * 9 = 1,557,000

43,900,000 / 1,557,000 = $28.20 per person in the senate recalls. Not even per voter.

quatchi: Tax ban the PACs.

FTFY. Instead of banning OMGGAYMARRIAGE and OMGABORTION under the guise of "They're destroying America," why not ban something that is really is destroying America?

quatchi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Prolly hafta change a law or two.

I'd say so. Like all of IRC Section 501.

HotWingConspiracy: I'm still kind of at a loss as to why the Democrats allowed republican agents to be seated on the SC.

Because they didn't want the Republicans mad at them, plus they promised to help the Dems out "later down the road". They shook hands on it and everything!

Bigger things were at stake than Zeke's election in Sheboygan.

Mess with the unions and it's a dog fight. A cat fight. A mud bath. A shiatstorm that rains special interest money.

Fluorescent Testicle: quatchi: Tax ban the PACs.

FTFY. Instead of banning OMGGAYMARRIAGE and OMGABORTION under the guise of "They're destroying America," why not ban something that is really is destroying America?

Would love to see that happen.

Betcha, though, that it would be too hard to do right now.

Give ya 5 to 4 odds against it happening.

*blink*

The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Equal protection requires only that similarly situated persons be treated similarly. Leaving aside for now the question of whether PACs are "persons" for purposes of equal protection analysis, as long as all PACs are treated equally there should be no problem.

You all realize that in a majority of states (26) Citizens United had no effect what-so-ever. Only 24 states had any campaign finance laws there were effected by the ruling in CU. Even if those states that did have a CU like restriction on outside spending, all it allowed them to do was run ads that said "Vote against Candidate X" where as before they had to say "Candidate X supports Y, you don't support Y, do you?"

And contrary to what seems to be common believe on FARK, none of the 26 states that have *never* had CU style campaign finance restrictions have descended into chaos, or suddenly become corporate run fascist states. Actually, the split on those 26 states that don't have restrictions is split pretty much evenly between red states and blue states. They also are generally *less* corrupt than states that do (or did) have restrictions on campaign finance.

But please, feel free to keep blaming all the woes of society on a Supreme Court ruling that did absolutely nothing to effect the local polities of most states.

Talondel: You all realize that in a majority of states (26) Citizens United had no effect what-so-ever. Only 24 states had any campaign finance laws there were effected by the ruling in CU. Even if those states that did have a CU like restriction on outside spending, all it allowed them to do was run ads that said "Vote against Candidate X" where as before they had to say "Candidate X supports Y, you don't support Y, do you?"

And contrary to what seems to be common believe on FARK, none of the 26 states that have *never* had CU style campaign finance restrictions have descended into chaos, or suddenly become corporate run fascist states. Actually, the split on those 26 states that don't have restrictions is split pretty much evenly between red states and blue states. They also are generally *less* corrupt than states that do (or did) have restrictions on campaign finance.

But please, feel free to keep blaming all the woes of society on a Supreme Court ruling that did absolutely nothing to effect the local polities of most states.

quatchi: Would love to see that happen. Betcha, though, that it would be too hard to do right now. Give ya 5 to 4 odds against it happening.

Oh, I know - I'm more likely to sprout a third arm from my asshole - but it's nice to dream.

Cletus C.: Bigger things were at stake than Zeke's election in Sheboygan.

Mess with the unions and it's a dog fight. A cat fight. A mud bath. A shiatstorm that rains special interest money.

Funny thing that back when unionization was higher and unions had more clout, we actually had a middle class.

I wonder how many anti-union Republicans are proudly working union-free... at Wal Mart, for minimum wage and no health benefits.

... but we all know that all unions are nothing but pure corruption and evil.

The ringers on my land line phones have all been turned off thanks to the unrelenting calls being made from 000-000-0000, "Unknown Name Unknown Number", "Name Unavailable", and (my personal favorite) "V04271427480003". If my cell phone reception didn't suck ass where I live my land line would have been disconnected during the last round of recall elections.

Fun fact: You can't block 000-000-0000 on Time Warner's phone service.

BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Equal protection requires only that similarly situated persons be treated similarly. Leaving aside for now the question of whether PACs are "persons" for purposes of equal protection analysis, as long as all PACs are treated equally there should be no problem.

And any decent lawyer would argue that "similarly situated" in this case should apply to all non-profit organizations, not just PACs in particular.

Talondel: You all realize that in a majority of states (26) Citizens United had no effect what-so-ever.

McCain-Feingold was a federal law, equally applicable in all 50 states.

Given the blatant falsehood in your very first sentence, I stopped reading there.

WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: Cletus C.: Bigger things were at stake than Zeke's election in Sheboygan.

Mess with the unions and it's a dog fight. A cat fight. A mud bath. A shiatstorm that rains special interest money.

Funny thing that back when unionization was higher and unions had more clout, we actually had a middle class.

I wonder how many anti-union Republicans are proudly working union-free... at Wal Mart, for minimum wage and no health benefits.

... but we all know that all unions are nothing but pure corruption and evil.

Freedom isn't free. Specifically, it will cost you your health care coverage, your retirement plan, and the benefit of a living wage.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Equal protection requires only that similarly situated persons be treated similarly. Leaving aside for now the question of whether PACs are "persons" for purposes of equal protection analysis, as long as all PACs are treated equally there should be no problem.

And any decent lawyer would argue that "similarly situated" in this case should apply to all non-profit organizations, not just PACs in particular.

I like to think I'm a decent lawyer, but it would never occur to me to make such a laughably disingenuous argument.

BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Equal protection requires only that similarly situated persons be treated similarly. Leaving aside for now the question of whether PACs are "persons" for purposes of equal protection analysis, as long as all PACs are treated equally there should be no problem.

And any decent lawyer would argue that "similarly situated" in this case should apply to all non-profit organizations, not just PACs in particular.

I like to think I'm a decent lawyer, but it would never occur to me to make such a laughably disingenuous argument.

When discussing taxing a non-profit organization, explain how other non-profit organizations are not similarly situated. I value your knowledge as an attorney, but I cannot see how you single out PACs without also addressing the wider issue of taxing a non-profit org without taxing the rest of them.

quatchi: Fluorescent Testicle: quatchi: Tax ban the PACs.

FTFY. Instead of banning OMGGAYMARRIAGE and OMGABORTION under the guise of "They're destroying America," why not ban something that is really is destroying America?

Would love to see that happen.

Betcha, though, that it would be too hard to do right now.

Give ya 5 to 4 odds against it happening.

*blink*

Considering how that 5 is never going to become a 4 in the foreseeable future, I'd put it at 100:1 odds...

The_Six_Fingered_Man: BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Equal protection requires only that similarly situated persons be treated similarly. Leaving aside for now the question of whether PACs are "persons" for purposes of equal protection analysis, as long as all PACs are treated equally there should be no problem.

And any decent lawyer would argue that "similarly situated" in this case should apply to all non-profit organizations, not just PACs in particular.

I like to think I'm a decent lawyer, but it would never occur to me to make such a laughably disingenuous argument.

When discussing taxing a non-profit organization, explain how other non-profit organizations are not similarly situated. I value your knowledge as an attorney, but I cannot see how you single out PACs without also addressing the wider issue of taxing a non-profit org without taxing the rest of them.

Suppose that a federal statute requires all producers of dairy products to file a specific form with the Department of Agriculture each quarter or be subject to a fine. Acme Dairy Corp. fails to file and is fined, but argues that the filing requirement violates equal protection because it doesn't apply to all for-profit corporations. What result?

BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Equal protection requires only that similarly situated persons be treated similarly. Leaving aside for now the question of whether PACs are "persons" for purposes of equal protection analysis, as long as all PACs are treated equally there should be no problem.

And any decent lawyer would argue that "similarly situated" in this case should apply to all non-profit organizations, not just PACs in particular.

I like to think I'm a decent lawyer, but it would never occur to me to make such a laughably disingenuous argument.

When discussing taxing a non-profit organization, explain how other non-profit organizations are not similarly situated. I value your knowledge as an attorney, but I cannot see how you single out PACs without also addressing the wider issue of taxing a non-profit org without taxing the rest of them.

Suppose that a federal statute requires all producers of dairy products to file a specific form with the Department of Agriculture each quarter or be subject to a fine. Acme Dairy Corp. fails to file and is fined, but argues that the filing requirement violates equal protection because it doesn't apply to all for-profit corporations. What result?

I get what you are saying, so we'd have to reduce it to all NPOs that engage in political advocacy?

DeltaPunch: quatchi: Fluorescent Testicle: quatchi: Tax ban the PACs.

FTFY. Instead of banning OMGGAYMARRIAGE and OMGABORTION under the guise of "They're destroying America," why not ban something that is really is destroying America?

Would love to see that happen.

Betcha, though, that it would be too hard to do right now.

Give ya 5 to 4 odds against it happening.

*blink*

Considering how that 5 is never going to become a 4 in the foreseeable future, I'd put it at 100:1 odds...

*sigh*

Meh, look on the bright side DC could potentially suffer a massive tetanus shot shortage while an outbreak of rabid badgers run wild in the street biting Tomas and Scalia in the ass leading to an "Ole Yeller" moment.

Eternal optimist, that's me. ^_^

Dare to dream.

Weaver95: I don't care what your political affiliation is...those numbers are crazy. that is a LOT of money for a state level race!

Here's a thought: It used to be Candidates had direct feedback, spread for an interest, get your payout. All fairly newtonian where action equals reaction. But NOW they have to please lords who do not (and legally CANNOT) "collude" with them at all. Now they serve the dark and unpredictable (job) Creator(s) who work in mysterious ways. Now they must service the altar with devotions and offerings that will bear whatever fruit the capricious lords deem fit.

The dynamic changes from whore to cultist, and that's not a good change in my opinion.

Is it a day that ends in Y?

Indeed, so it's time for liberals to whine about their loss of a cash flow advantage in elections again.

The_Six_Fingered_Man:
I get what you are saying, so we'd have to reduce it to all NPOs that engage in political advocacy?

Have nothing to offer the discussion but just wanted to say that although you're someone who I disagree with, you're pleasant to have a discussion with.

randomjsa: Is it a day that ends in Y?

Indeed, so it's time for liberals to whine about their loss of a cash flow advantage in elections again.


The Democrats out earned in special-interest money according to the article. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. This is HUGE money trying to overly-influence the American voter.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: The_Six_Fingered_Man: quatchi: Tax the PACs.

Explain how you manage to do that and not run afoul of equal protection.

Prolly hafta change a law or two.

I'd say so. Like all of IRC Section 501.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I get what you are saying, so we'd have to reduce it to all NPOs that engage in political advocacy?

Or something like that. In any event, my disagreement on this point is actually a bit pedantic given that I'm commenting only on the suggestion that this would create an equal protection problem (which, obviously, I don't believe is the case). There's a better argument available, however, and it's one which I think would prevail - I don't think it would be constitutional to impose a tax on any group of actors based specifically on their political activity.

StopLurkListen: The_Six_Fingered_Man:
I get what you are saying, so we'd have to reduce it to all NPOs that engage in political advocacy?

Have nothing to offer the discussion but just wanted to say that although you're someone who I disagree with, you're pleasant to have a discussion with.

I would generally agree with this. At worst, The_Six_Fingered_Man is no more obnoxious than I am.

BMulligan: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I get what you are saying, so we'd have to reduce it to all NPOs that engage in political advocacy?

Or something like that. In any event, my disagreement on this point is actually a bit pedantic given that I'm commenting only on the suggestion that this would create an equal protection problem (which, obviously, I don't believe is the case). There's a better argument available, however, and it's one which I think would prevail - I don't think it would be constitutional to impose a tax on any group of actors based specifically on their political activity.

StopLurkListen: The_Six_Fingered_Man:
I get what you are saying, so we'd have to reduce it to all NPOs that engage in political advocacy?

Have nothing to offer the discussion but just wanted to say that although you're someone who I disagree with, you're pleasant to have a discussion with.

I would generally agree with this. At worst, The_Six_Fingered_Man is no more obnoxious than I am.

To be fair, I've never seen you bend over, pull down your pants, and talk out of your asshole about things you know nothing about the way Six_Fingers routinely does.

Talondel: You all realize that in a majority of states (26) Citizens United had no effect what-so-ever. Only 24 states had any campaign finance laws there were effected by the ruling in CU. Even if those states that did have a CU like restriction on outside spending, all it allowed them to do was run ads that said "Vote against Candidate X" where as before they had to say "Candidate X supports Y, you don't support Y, do you?"

And contrary to what seems to be common believe on FARK, none of the 26 states that have *never* had CU style campaign finance restrictions have descended into chaos, or suddenly become corporate run fascist states. Actually, the split on those 26 states that don't have restrictions is split pretty much evenly between red states and blue states. They also are generally *less* corrupt than states that do (or did) have restrictions on campaign finance.

But please, feel free to keep blaming all the woes of society on a Supreme Court ruling that did absolutely nothing to effect the local polities of most states.

Have you not been paying attention to politics for the last 35 years?