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.

(Guardian)   US Supreme Court set to decide whether you can buy Congressmen wholesale and cut out the lobbyists altogether   (guardian.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Hero, independent expenditures, lobbyists, wholesales, congressman, campaign contributions  
•       •       •

4206 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 1:50 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
Bf+
2013-03-19 03:56:10 PM  

DamnYankees: legalize outright bribery.


It would first have to be illegal in order to legalize it.
 
2013-03-19 03:57:56 PM  

LedLawless: You don't understand, this is perfectly fair.  Poor people will have the same right to donate millions to political campaigns.  What, you don't have millions of dollars laying around?  Working 60 hours a week just pays the bills?  Lazy socialist!


We call them 47 percenters here to be polite
 
2013-03-19 03:58:50 PM  
Wait.. so corporations have no donation limit but individuals do?

Sounds democratic.
 
2013-03-19 04:04:45 PM  

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: You think no one would challenge it? Regardless, the enforcement of any such amendment would be almost entirely through the courts.

I was unsure what question you were asking. Any challenge wouldn't make it past initial filings, right (assuming the above process was followed)?

Enforcement of all the Amendments is already done through the courts, n'est-ce pas? Or do you mean a court would have to certify that "this is actually the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution, as full in force as the First, Second and Twenty-First"?

// of course, people still don't accept the 16th as valid, so...


Maybe. I think this is one case where it could go crazy, since (as far as I know) no amendment has been approved in this fashion. I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal government challenged the the process - not that the process exists, of course, but that all the requirements were met.

You're right about the second half, of course. I didn't think my cunning remarks all the way through. Perhaps I was envisioning enforcing the amendment itself, not the laws enacted as a result.
 
2013-03-19 04:16:12 PM  

Happy Hours: Rincewind53: I just wish the incredibly successful lawyer behind all of this wasn't so absurdly named that no one takes him seriously.

For God's sake, his name is  Jim Bopp.

Wasn't there some boy band that sang a song about him back in the '90s?

Yeah, I think it was these guys:

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x273]


I'm listening to the farking song!
 
2013-03-19 04:25:21 PM  

cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.


omg those evil corporations are the same people who donate to the Congressmen required to start this effort off.
 
2013-03-19 04:29:36 PM  

DamnYankees: I honestly don't understand how this wouldn't just legalize outright bribery.


I guess because they can only donate to political campaigns, and not to the politicians personally.
 
2013-03-19 05:13:26 PM  

Macinfarker: DamnYankees: I honestly don't understand how this wouldn't just legalize outright bribery.

I guess because they can only donate to political campaigns, and not to the politicians personally.


And it's not like political campaigns can't use the money to do nothing but buy books "written" by the politician in question that are published through the politicians own publisher which made only to publish that politicians books.
 
2013-03-19 05:44:13 PM  

WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.


Political donations should be completely outlawed, and political campaigns should be financed publicly.
 
2013-03-19 05:50:12 PM  

DamnYankees: I honestly don't understand how this wouldn't just legalize outright bribery.


Its already legalized bribery. This would just cut down on the red tape
 
2013-03-19 06:30:51 PM  
If the Court is going to say money is speech I don't see how they can reach any other decision than lifting the limits.
 
2013-03-19 06:36:33 PM  
Term limits and no private funding allowed for campaigning.  Set aside tax dollars for use on a sliding scale based on the type of election (presidential, congressional, state and local government) so that every single person is on a level playing field.  No private funds, including your own.  Lobbyists lose much of their influence.

Move those "lifers" along and rotate some fairly elected officials through -  that aren't weighed down by all these commitments to people other than their constituents.
 
2013-03-19 06:46:53 PM  

WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.


Does not fix the problem that, should someone in high office be upset with your support of someone other than him, that there are completely legal ways to make your life and business a living hell.
 
2013-03-19 07:37:27 PM  

jcooli09: WTF Indeed: Political donations should be unlimited with highly transparent reporting, and ad buys should be illegal in a general election.

Political donations should be completely outlawed, and political campaigns should be financed publicly.


How do you decide who becomes a candidate worthy to receive public funding?
 
2013-03-19 07:38:07 PM  

Carth: If the Court is going to say money is speech I don't see how they can reach any other decision than lifting the limits.


Good thing they didn't say that then.
 
2013-03-19 08:00:31 PM  

KrustyKitten: Term limits and no private funding allowed for campaigning.  Set aside tax dollars for use on a sliding scale based on the type of election (presidential, congressional, state and local government) so that every single person is on a level playing field.  No private funds, including your own.  Lobbyists lose much of their influence.

Move those "lifers" along and rotate some fairly elected officials through -  that aren't weighed down by all these commitments to people other than their constituents.


Rather than term limits how about yearly and lifetime "Unconstitutional totals". Meaning that if a legislator votes for, say, 3 or more bills found to be unconstitutional in the same year he loses the ability to vote for or introduce legislation. Add in a lifetime cap of fifteen Unconstitutional bills voted/introduced where once you hit 15 bills found unconstitutional you are ejected from Congress and are ineligible from future legislative office. This way people doing their job can stay on but people that spend their time grandstanding and introducing nakedly unconstitutional shiat get punished and eventually tossed if they persist.
 
2013-03-19 09:49:58 PM  

DamnYankees: I honestly don't understand how this wouldn't just legalize outright bribery.


It's not bribery if there's a limit on it?
 
2013-03-19 10:02:55 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: cman: I keep on saying this:

There are enough people who support overturning Citizens United via constitution amendment. Why isnt there any sort of concerted effort to do so?

And no, please dont spout off conspiracy theories (OMG THOSE EVIL CORPORATIONS!). I am asking for solid facts.

https://movetoamend.org/


Where is Amend?
 
2013-03-19 10:34:29 PM  
I think this would be completely fair!!  If David Koch can contribute $500,000,000 of his hard-inherited money to conservative causes, I can contribute $500,000,000 toward liberal causes!!!  See!!  Absolutely fair!!
 
2013-03-20 01:33:28 AM  
Winterwhile lives on in the comments section.
Alas, there's no poorly edited editorial cartoons allowed on that site.
 
Xai
2013-03-20 04:09:16 AM  
Because bought and paid for politicians that make the rich richer so they can afford more politicians is the way to go
 
2013-03-20 08:45:45 AM  
anything that will cut costs and make the system more efficient is a big plus for Freedom.
 
2013-03-20 08:56:49 AM  

jigger: Carth: If the Court is going to say money is speech I don't see how they can reach any other decision than lifting the limits.

Good thing they didn't say that then.


I haven't read Buckley v. Valeo in years so you might be right. I thought they ruled both that spending money on campaigns is free speech and that campaign limits were allowed. The opinion on why never resonated with me though.

Would you mind explaining to me how the ruling doesn't say campaign money is free speech?
 
2013-03-20 12:21:31 PM  

bdub77: our democratic republic will forever be in the pocket of big business


"The politicians like to think they're in charge, but it's always been the Mega-Corps that really run things" - William Edgars, Babylon 5
 
2013-03-20 01:12:32 PM  
It's fun to look back at the articles regarding campaign finance reform from back in the 90s.  At that time, the general attitude was that things were already out of hand, and tough new reforms were needed.

Who would have guessed that a decade later, we would be sitting here talking about how an activist supreme court completely gutted those meager attempts at reform, and is considering gutting them even more.
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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