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.

(The Raw Story)   High-ranking politician promises to overturn unpopular law that was upheld by the Supreme Court as soon as their candidate is sworn in next January. No, not that law. And no, not that candidate, either   (rawstory.com) divider line 126
    More: Spiffy, supreme courts, Citizens United, Democrats, campaign finance laws, Nancy Pelosi  
•       •       •

5221 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-27 03:34:06 PM

abb3w: Teiritzamna: ?stop thinking corporations as people and start thinking people exercising their rights in a group, if you want to see how overturning CU is a very sticky problem

How about a federal law that political contributions made by a corporation pierce the corporate veil?


wait wut? I am not entirely sure what you mean by veil-piercing here - not trying to be obtuse, but are you saying we impose liability on shareholders for corporate political donations, because shareholders already have the right to make the same donations individually so any liability would be doubly violative of the 1st A. I just don't see how shareholder liability fits into this discussion?
 
2012-09-27 03:41:29 PM
But we will keep the patriot act and infinite detention of Americans!
 
2012-09-27 03:45:11 PM

Dr Dreidel: Teiritzamna: stop thinking corporations as people and start thinking people exercising their rights in a group, if you want to see how overturning CU is a very sticky problem

That's why I approached it as a "people" problem. People, under my plan, would still be allowed to form groups and lobby government, but they would need to be separate entities dedicated solely to lobbying and separate from any corporation. The people in corporations are still allowed to donate, and their rights of association are not trampled.

The sticking point I can see is the post-hoc rewriting of campaign-finance law. Since each election is a separate thing, could my proposal be written as "Applying to all elections after Jan 1, 20XX"? And I suppose we couldn't do that for primaries, as those are run by "private" concerns (political parties, who have their own rules), making it a bit of an incomplete move, but am I getting close?

// make lobbying groups not-for-profit (or nonprofit; I forget which one is allowed to have profits) and profits are taxed 60%


But there is no good constitutional hook upon which to hang your argument: people acting through some groups have 100% of their free speech rights, people acting through other groups do not. What is the difference and how does that difference satisfy strict scrutiny, i.e. how would this distinction (1) address a "compelling governmental interest" - that is an interest that is "necessary or crucial" rather than merely "preferred"; (2) be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal (not be over-broad or over-inclusive in scope) and (3) be "the least restrictive means" for achieving this interest (there can be no less restrictive method of satisfying the government's need).

Under the present test for the 1st A, i just cannot see a law saying a group of people assembled specifically for political action can speak, but one formed to make widgets cannot, even if doing so would really help widget making. First there is the question of the compelling interest - which totally bombed out in CU, and no group has made a solid attack on since, let alone the fact that your system is vague enough to likely fail the narrowly tailored/least restrictive prongs.

Not trying to be attacky, just doing my unfortunate vomiting information thing
 
2012-09-27 03:51:09 PM

Gyrfalcon: The Citizens United ruling would be overturnable--and would never have been an issue--if it is not framed as a First Amendment issue. That was what got the opponents screwed in the first place. It was framed in terms of the potential chilling effect it could have on small businesses, personal corporations (doctors, eg.) and even charitable organizations which are non-profit corporations. I think part of either the brief or the opinion referenced Greenpeace and the Sierra Club--do we really not want candidates to have endorsements from them?

No matter how conservative they are, the Supreme Court will NEVER uphold any law or proposed law that infringes on the First Amendment. Framing opposition to CU as a 1st Amd. issue was a stroke of brilliance on the part of the lawyers. We all know the purpose of the law was to allow corporations unlimited right to pay off, I mean, contribute to the candidate of their choice. But merely the thought of suppressing people's rights to do so ensured the Court ruled the way it did.

I'll keep saying this till some attorney gets off his or her fat ass, stops whining about the CU ruling, and reframes the argument in a way that makes it clear the intent of the law is to stop corporations from paying off politicians.


If you are suggesting it should fall under bribery - you may be surprised to know that campaign finance laws are already written the way they are to avoid exactly that. However, the the 1st amendment is broad enough that while we can say it is not political speech to bribe a politician, its much harder to write laws that would prevent a private citizen from deciding to pony up $100,000,000 to buy ads saying a politician is great. They are different things, even though from a distance they appear to collapse into each other.

This is the "problem" with powerful negative rights. See also the 4th/5th Amendments - which used to be much stronger until Americans disliked that some criminals could get protections against police intrusion and interrogation and elected presidents who specifically promised to select justices who would gut them. (not a joke, look at Nixon's appointment of Rehnquist.). Me personally, i like em powerful, but i also appreciate they require us to be smart on how we work around them.
 
2012-09-27 04:16:48 PM

Teiritzamna: Not trying to be attacky, just doing my unfortunate vomiting information thing


I know tone is hard to convey, but I think I'm getting yours pretty well.

(1) address a "compelling governmental interest" - that is an interest that is "necessary or crucial" rather than merely "preferred";
(2) be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal (not be over-broad or over-inclusive in scope) and
(3) be "the least restrictive means" for achieving this interest (there can be no less restrictive method of satisfying the government's need).


As I understand, (1) was argued before the Court, who didn't find the abstract argument persuasive. Now we have demonstrable evidence that there is a compelling interest to have a broad base of campaign donors, rather than 5 wealthy donors contributing 80% of the money spent on a presidential race. (I may be confusing the CU arguments with the ones about MT's state campaign finance law.) It's not a slam-dunk, but more persuasive than it was 2 years ago.

My proposal could be more narrowly tailored (OMG long billz r LONG!!), for sure. (2) doesn't seem like too high a bar to clear. Any business whose purpose is not solely lobbying or electioneering is subject to those restrictions (that lobbying firms would now be nonprofits is immaterial), the rules would apply to specific candidates (so "issue" ads would be OK, but anything pro- or anti- a specific candidate is verboten), and private citizens retain every right and means of access they had before.

Assuming my interpretation of (1) is correct, showing (3) shouldn't be that hard. When the problem is "too much corporate money mucking up our free/fair elections", it seems the only way to combat it is to remove money's access to elections (candidates). I don't know how solidly "least restrictive" it has to be, but this seems pretty good - again, because private citizens retain every right they previously had.
 
2012-09-27 04:48:01 PM

Citrate1007: This will probably be the first Amendment to the Constitution i'll see passed in my lifetime. I think overall Americans regardless of political affiliation realize that the Citizens United decision and SuperPacs are a very, very bad thing.


The chances of any constitutional amendment passing on any contraversal issue (such as this one) any time soon is so close to being zero as to be equal to zero for all practical purposes.

And the Citizens' United decision was properly decided, IMHO. The United States has insanely strong free speech protections, which cover things such as political speech, annoymous speech, paid speech, and annoymous paid political speech, as well as things like preventing the banning of speech that insults a particular religion, to use another example currently in the news. Prior to Citizens' United, it was illegal for an independent group to buy an ad that said "Vote for candidate X". That is clearly unconstitutional, IMHO.
 
2012-09-27 04:50:39 PM

Teiritzamna: I am not entirely sure what you mean by veil-piercing here - not trying to be obtuse, but are you saying we impose liability on shareholders for corporate political donations, because shareholders already have the right to make the same donations individually so any liability would be doubly violative of the 1st A. I just don't see how shareholder liability fits into this discussion?


It fits in because limited liability seems the main (and most treasured) right that corporate persons have that ordinary human persons don't... and that "right" does not seem to be inherent, but rather to exist entirely on the sufferance of the Legislative, utterly within the scope of Congressional constitutional authority with respect to Bankruptcy. So, it's a rule change that it would appear Congress can make, purely to be mean discourage political meddling by for-profit corporations.

In short: grab the conveniently placed short hairs.

Someone could probably come up with a pitch about how people's sincere political commitment should be willing to risk their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor".
 
2012-09-27 04:53:38 PM

I alone am best: Diogenes: Weaver95: that's a nice sentiment...but I very much doubt 'Citizens United' is going anywhere anytime soon.

I agree. And a little silly to make such a promise.

Not silly at all. They have no chance at the house. Why not make any promise you think may help you.


No, Romney's gone and farked things up so badly that the Dems seemingly do have a realistic chance at the House.

And other than attempting to pass a constitutional amendment (which will fail), Pelosi was also talking about passing the DISCLOSE Act, which would require the head of any organization that puts a political ad on TV or radio to publicly state that he or she approves the message, similar to what candidates must do now (and which is probably unconstitutional, of course).
 
2012-09-27 04:57:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: Teiritzamna: Not trying to be attacky, just doing my unfortunate vomiting information thing

I know tone is hard to convey, but I think I'm getting yours pretty well.

(1) address a "compelling governmental interest" - that is an interest that is "necessary or crucial" rather than merely "preferred";
(2) be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal (not be over-broad or over-inclusive in scope) and
(3) be "the least restrictive means" for achieving this interest (there can be no less restrictive method of satisfying the government's need).

As I understand, (1) was argued before the Court, who didn't find the abstract argument persuasive. Now we have demonstrable evidence that there is a compelling interest to have a broad base of campaign donors, rather than 5 wealthy donors contributing 80% of the money spent on a presidential race. (I may be confusing the CU arguments with the ones about MT's state campaign finance law.) It's not a slam-dunk, but more persuasive than it was 2 years ago.

My proposal could be more narrowly tailored (OMG long billz r LONG!!), for sure. (2) doesn't seem like too high a bar to clear. Any business whose purpose is not solely lobbying or electioneering is subject to those restrictions (that lobbying firms would now be nonprofits is immaterial), the rules would apply to specific candidates (so "issue" ads would be OK, but anything pro- or anti- a specific candidate is verboten), and private citizens retain every right and means of access they had before.

Assuming my interpretation of (1) is correct, showing (3) shouldn't be that hard. When the problem is "too much corporate money mucking up our free/fair elections", it seems the only way to combat it is to remove money's access to elections (candidates). I don't know how solidly "least restrictive" it has to be, but this seems pretty good - again, because private citizens retain every right they previously had.


The problem for the compelling interest step is that "too much corporate money" by definition cannot be "mucking up our elections" because what that boils down to under constitutional analysis is the same as saying "there is too much speech in our free speech." You may disagree, but nothing about the 1st amendment analysis so far suggests that the marketplace of ideas needs regulation - if someone can out shout you (or bury your ads in theirs), it at least so far, does not rise to an interest requiring the restriction of speech. That's one of the reasons the compelling interest argument floundered the first time in CU. A proper compelling interest could include "corruption" (i.e. buying politicians) and frankly this is likely to be the best hook get in the gate with.

However, that's not too much salvation, because a ban on all political speech by general corporations is not likely to be seen to be narrowly tailored and least restrictive, as there are other ways to avoid political corruption, such as heightened regulation.
 
2012-09-27 04:58:48 PM
Pull the other one.
 
2012-09-27 04:59:19 PM

Teiritzamna: But there is no good constitutional hook upon which to hang your argument: people acting through some groups have 100% of their free speech rights, people acting through other groups do not. What is the difference and how does that difference satisfy strict scrutiny, i.e. how would this distinction (1) address a "compelling governmental interest" - that is an interest that is "necessary or crucial" rather than merely "preferred"; (2) be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal (not be over-broad or over-inclusive in scope) and (3) be "the least restrictive means" for achieving this interest (there can be no less restrictive method of satisfying the government's need).

Under the present test for the 1st A, i just cannot see a law saying a group of people assembled specifically for political action can speak, but one formed to make widgets cannot, even if doing so would really help widget making. First there is the question of the compelling interest - which totally bombed out in CU, and no group has made a solid attack on since, let alone the fact that your system is vague enough to likely fail the narrowly tailored/least restrictive prongs.

Not trying to be attacky, just doing my unfortunate vomiting information thing


Ok, first off, great job explaining this - I kept getting hung up in the opinion about protecting shareholders and media corporations being treated differently - looking at it from the "group of citizens speaking in the marketplace of ideas" viewpoint makes sense now.

Now, having reread the opinion, there's a few things that jump out at me. Taking them in order from the opinion, SCOTUS knocked down the law because 1) First Amendment prohibits from fining people or groups of people for speech, and the corporations that McCain-Feingold banned from advertising fall under that banner, plus media corps are treated different from others even though the situations are close enough to the same; 2) independent expenditures do not give rise to the appearance of corruption; 3) the interests of minority shareholders is not a sufficient governmental interest, nor are the restrictions narrowly tailored enough to support them even if those rights were a sufficient governmental interest; and 4) it isn't even tailored to ban foreign expenditures, even if foreign control of the political process were a legitimate government interest.

Ok, so the primary reason CU happened was point #1 up there - the people that form corporations have a right to join together and a right to speak freely. But it seems like the opinion gave some wiggle room on a few things. Starting at the bottom, could you tailor a campaign finance bill that prohibited independent expenditures by foreign-owned, -operated, or -funded corporations? I mean, if all of these corps are offshoring all of their profits to tax havens, couldn't that be used to lock them out of politics? I'm not sure if you could make a compelling government interest out of preventing foreign influence in American politics, but with the right judges, that argument could hold sway.

Also lifted from the opinion, it seems like transparency wins the day as the disclaimer and disclosure requirements were upheld. Is there any way to push that further and require all corps engaged in political speech to reveal sources of funding? I'm not sure how to write that to shine a light into all nooks and crannies (and professional layers of obfuscation) that somebody like Rove would throw up between Crossroads and the Koch Bros for example, yet still keep it on the right side of "narrowly tailored"

Finally, is there any way (my pie in the sky never happen dream) to prevent any corporation anywhere from engaging in political speech? Because the right to form the legal entity known as a corporation and gain the benefits of corporate form is one that is artificially created and not inherently constitutional in nature. Ideally, what I would like to see, is a broad restriction on any corporation from engaging in any political speech. If you wanted to associate with others for the purposes of political speech, you must identify the individuals who belong to the association and provide complete transparency into all transactions undertaken in your name. Basically, I would create a whole new class of business entities that would combine paid lobbyists, super PACs, issue groups, etc into one class of association that was restricted from participating in the economy in any way EXCEPT political speech.
 
2012-09-27 04:59:45 PM

abb3w: Teiritzamna: I am not entirely sure what you mean by veil-piercing here - not trying to be obtuse, but are you saying we impose liability on shareholders for corporate political donations, because shareholders already have the right to make the same donations individually so any liability would be doubly violative of the 1st A. I just don't see how shareholder liability fits into this discussion?

It fits in because limited liability seems the main (and most treasured) right that corporate persons have that ordinary human persons don't... and that "right" does not seem to be inherent, but rather to exist entirely on the sufferance of the Legislative, utterly within the scope of Congressional constitutional authority with respect to Bankruptcy. So, it's a rule change that it would appear Congress can make, purely to be mean discourage political meddling by for-profit corporations.

In short: grab the conveniently placed short hairs.

Someone could probably come up with a pitch about how people's sincere political commitment should be willing to risk their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor".


Oh so you are suggesting that if a corporation makes political speech it ceases to be a corporation and becomes something akin to a giant partnership. gotcha. Still would never pass constitutional muster, but i am now not the confused. Danke.
 
2012-09-27 05:07:33 PM

phyrkrakr: Finally, is there any way (my pie in the sky never happen dream) to prevent any corporation anywhere from engaging in political speech? Because the right to form the legal entity known as a corporation and gain the benefits of corporate form is one that is artificially created and not inherently constitutional in nature. Ideally, what I would like to see, is a broad restriction on any corporation from engaging in any political speech. If you wanted to associate with others for the purposes of political speech, you must identify the individuals who belong to the association and provide complete transparency into all transactions undertaken in your name. Basically, I would create a whole new class of business entities that would combine paid lobbyists, super PACs, issue groups, etc into one class of association that was restricted from participating in the economy in any way EXCEPT political speech.


That's probably the only way to do it, to a degree. What you do is enforce public funds only for campaigns and ban private campaign donations, advertising, etc. Perhaps you limit it to certain levels(lobbying remains okay, buying a TV ad doesn't, etc), but part of the SC decision was basically not wanting to worry about classifying who can have what speech levels, which allows for an all or nothing approach.
 
2012-09-27 05:08:43 PM

phyrkrakr: Teiritzamna: But there is no good constitutional hook upon which to hang your argument: people acting through some groups have 100% of their free speech rights, people acting through other groups do not. What is the difference and how does that difference satisfy strict scrutiny, i.e. how would this distinction (1) address a "compelling governmental interest" - that is an interest that is "necessary or crucial" rather than merely "preferred"; (2) be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that goal (not be over-broad or over-inclusive in scope) and (3) be "the least restrictive means" for achieving this interest (there can be no less restrictive method of satisfying the government's need).

Under the present test for the 1st A, i just cannot see a law saying a group of people assembled specifically for political action can speak, but one formed to make widgets cannot, even if doing so would really help widget making. First there is the question of the compelling interest - which totally bombed out in CU, and no group has made a solid attack on since, let alone the fact that your system is vague enough to likely fail the narrowly tailored/least restrictive prongs.

Not trying to be attacky, just doing my unfortunate vomiting information thing

Ok, first off, great job explaining this - I kept getting hung up in the opinion about protecting shareholders and media corporations being treated differently - looking at it from the "group of citizens speaking in the marketplace of ideas" viewpoint makes sense now.

Now, having reread the opinion, there's a few things that jump out at me. Taking them in order from the opinion, SCOTUS knocked down the law because 1) First Amendment prohibits from fining people or groups of people for speech, and the corporations that McCain-Feingold banned from advertising fall under that banner, plus media corps are treated different from others even though the situations are close enough to the same; 2) independent expenditures do not give rise to ...


1) i am not really sure regarding the foreign point. Strangely enough, the first amendment - being a negative right - is not limited to citizens. It is not that Americans have the right of free speech, its that American government cannot curtail speech. However, going back to strict scrutiny, i could see some case being made that there is a compelling interest to stop foreign interests from affecting American elections. One of my friends who is a big 1st A buff seemed to suggest this might be possible, but i never really ran her down on it. I wish i had a better answer, but frankly that is likely to be the next big fight under CU.

2) Yes - i have fallen to the viewpoint that the best way out of this is brutally strict disclosure requirements. This falls in with JJ. Brandeis and Holmes's position that the cure for speech is MORE speech, not restrictions on it. If we have more info on who is farking with us, it greatly lessens their effectiveness.

3) i discussed this a bit up-thread - because CU is not based on corporate personhood but on the rights of actual humans, it seem at least to me that any incorporation based limitation of speech is unlikely to succeed. Here is the link to Volokh again that does a fair job of laying it out.
 
2012-09-27 05:10:59 PM
Also I must say this has been a most cordial CU thread - so hooray speech!
 
2012-09-27 05:13:32 PM

Gyrfalcon: Framing opposition to CU as a 1st Amd. issue was a stroke of brilliance on the part of the lawyers.


So it wasn't obviously a first amendment issue? It had to be twisted that way?
 
2012-09-27 05:21:33 PM

Teiritzamna: The problem for the compelling interest step is that "too much corporate money" by definition cannot be "mucking up our elections" because what that boils down to under constitutional analysis is the same as saying "there is too much speech in our free speech." You may disagree, but nothing about the 1st amendment analysis so far suggests that the marketplace of ideas needs regulation - if someone can out shout you (or bury your ads in theirs), it at least so far, does not rise to an interest requiring the restriction of speech. That's one of the reasons the compelling interest argument floundered the first time in CU. A proper compelling interest could include "corruption" (i.e. buying politicians) and frankly this is likely to be the best hook get in the gate with.


That is indeed what I was going for.

However, that's not too much salvation, because a ban on all political speech by general corporations is not likely to be seen to be narrowly tailored and least restrictive, as there are other ways to avoid political corruption, such as heightened regulation.

But every other method of campaign-finance regulation is seen as an attack on Free Speech - limiting donations and limiting the window of time one may campaign are the only two I know of that have been tried, but from what other angle can campaign speech be regulated (assuming we can't restrict what is said by campaigns, which I don't think anyone would want - other than forcing them to generally speak truth)?

Regardless, this has been an interesting discussion - you're a real-life Lawyer, correct? Not just a GED in FarkLaw?
 
2012-09-27 05:25:07 PM

Teiritzamna: 3) i discussed this a bit up-thread - because CU is not based on corporate personhood but on the rights of actual humans, it seem at least to me that any incorporation based limitation of speech is unlikely to succeed. Here is the link to Volokh again that does a fair job of laying it out.


Yeah, I read that after posting - makes more sense now.

Teiritzamna: 2) Yes - i have fallen to the viewpoint that the best way out of this is brutally strict disclosure requirements. This falls in with JJ. Brandeis and Holmes's position that the cure for speech is MORE speech, not restrictions on it. If we have more info on who is farking with us, it greatly lessens their effectiveness.


Gotta love Brandeis and Holmes (well, once he pulled his head out of his ass after Schenck in time to join the Whitney opinion). But man, I get so tired of all the uninformed political yelling and the cynical manipulation of emotion that is embraced by these assholes that I wish there was a way to shut them up.
 
2012-09-27 05:29:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: Teiritzamna: The problem for the compelling interest step is that "too much corporate money" by definition cannot be "mucking up our elections" because what that boils down to under constitutional analysis is the same as saying "there is too much speech in our free speech." You may disagree, but nothing about the 1st amendment analysis so far suggests that the marketplace of ideas needs regulation - if someone can out shout you (or bury your ads in theirs), it at least so far, does not rise to an interest requiring the restriction of speech. That's one of the reasons the compelling interest argument floundered the first time in CU. A proper compelling interest could include "corruption" (i.e. buying politicians) and frankly this is likely to be the best hook get in the gate with.

That is indeed what I was going for.

However, that's not too much salvation, because a ban on all political speech by general corporations is not likely to be seen to be narrowly tailored and least restrictive, as there are other ways to avoid political corruption, such as heightened regulation.

But every other method of campaign-finance regulation is seen as an attack on Free Speech - limiting donations and limiting the window of time one may campaign are the only two I know of that have been tried, but from what other angle can campaign speech be regulated (assuming we can't restrict what is said by campaigns, which I don't think anyone would want - other than forcing them to generally speak truth)?

Regardless, this has been an interesting discussion - you're a real-life Lawyer, correct? Not just a GED in FarkLaw?


Well i would say there is a distinction between direct contributions, where the specter of bribery is much higher than donations for advocacy, which is why the whole no-coordination thing is so important. On the flip side, we will now have real data that may suggest that tons of actual coordination is going on, which could push the argument such that (potentially very high) caps on non-direct donations could pass muster. For me, though, i dont want the upside of CU to be that we get more laws chipping away at an amendment. I have seen what happened to #s 4,5 and 6 - i really don't want to happen to 1

Also alas yes I am one of the Fark Lawyer Brigade (tm) - and thus i must stress that nothing i have said in this thread counts as legal advice, or even, to be honest, good ideas.
 
2012-09-27 05:31:07 PM

phyrkrakr: Gotta love Brandeis and Holmes (well, once he pulled his head out of his ass after Schenck in time to join the Whitney opinion). But man, I get so tired of all the uninformed political yelling and the cynical manipulation of emotion that is embraced by these assholes that I wish there was a way to shut them up.


I salute anyone who likes the B&H - and yeah - most fun part about Holmes's shift after Schenck? he was likely turned by an afternoon conversation/smackdown by Learned Hand!
 
2012-09-27 05:34:02 PM

Teiritzamna: Regardless, this has been an interesting discussion - you're a real-life Lawyer, correct? Not just a GED in FarkLaw?


Also i meant to mention that it has been very interesting on my end too! And i hope i am not coming off as a know it all/farker who tries to shut people down - I am pretty much with you from the "oh shiat- avalanche of money cannot be good" side, but my law-talking-guyness often kicks in.
 
2012-09-27 05:50:33 PM

Teiritzamna: Yes - i have fallen to the viewpoint that the best way out of this is brutally strict disclosure requirements. This falls in with JJ. Brandeis and Holmes's position that the cure for speech is MORE speech, not restrictions on it. If we have more info on who is farking with us, it greatly lessens their effectiveness.


The cure for free speech is forced speech? Does speech need a cure in the first place?

Link
 
2012-09-27 06:01:21 PM
The "cure" for speech you don't like is to speak up yourself, not force people to reveal who the speaker is. What if there were a Disclose Act during for the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers?
 
2012-09-27 07:23:59 PM

Jim_Callahan: All right, Pelosi is corrupt as all hell and kind of a dick, but I've never thought the woman was stupid. What's making her think that she can sell a political pledge based on no one knowing about the separation of powers? I mean, playing to ignorance I get, but I'm pretty sure even stupid people know "there are three branches of government" even if they don't know why.

//I guess someone's free to correct me on this if they want to make me sad.



Almost half of America still wants to vote for Mitt Romney for President.
I'm pretty sure she is banking on the stupidity of the American people in this circumstance.
 
2012-09-27 09:20:18 PM
"No, not that law..."

Actually, yes, that is exactly the law I was expecting. I don't know if it will pass, but that is exactly the "that law" I thought of when I saw the headline.
 
2012-09-27 11:31:47 PM
Isn't the real problem the Free Speech Now problem? Citizens United benefits Unions by letting them put their own name on their political ads, but corporations aren't going to want to put their name on their actions when you can always just make a SuperPAC.
 
Displayed 26 of 126 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report