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.

(The Hill)   If you're upset by the SCOTUS ruling about campaign contributions, join the club, say lobbyists. "The Supreme Court didn't give me more money. I have a budget. I don't have unlimited funds"   (thehill.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic, campaign contributions  
•       •       •

1370 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Apr 2014 at 7:36 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-02 06:19:34 PM  
Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.
 
2014-04-02 06:20:13 PM  
Even the lobbyists don't like living in John Roberts' America.
 
2014-04-02 06:25:23 PM  
Boo hoo.
 
2014-04-02 06:26:57 PM  
I wonder if at some point TV stations will simply run out of airtime.
 
2014-04-02 06:34:15 PM  
On the bright side, Senators are going to be a lot more expensive to buy.
 
2014-04-02 06:43:57 PM  

nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.


Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.
 
2014-04-02 06:48:34 PM  

nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.


We can't even get a law passed right now, you think we can get a constitutional ammendment passed?  The republicans will tack on a passage about outlawing abortion while they're at it.
 
2014-04-02 06:55:16 PM  

Karac: Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running


That's an idea I could get behind.
 
2014-04-02 07:10:03 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Karac: Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running

That's an idea I could get behind.


Thank you.  It's both easy for a prosecutor to prove (Your honor, I would like to submit into evidence exhibit A, a bank statement for the defendant in which the deposited a check not from the federal treasury department), and ensures that even if the convicted keeps his office, he has to schedule votes to occur either during conjugal visits with his johns or after smuggling in a cell phone in via an intern's bunghole.
 
2014-04-02 07:23:05 PM  

Karac: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.


That can be enacted via legislation enabled by nmrsnr's amendment.
 
2014-04-02 07:37:40 PM  

Karac: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.


And do like the UK does and restrict campaigning to a few months before the election.
 
2014-04-02 07:42:51 PM  
The only chance we have is a Democrat being elected in 2016, and really, that isn't something to rely on.
 
2014-04-02 07:45:21 PM  

Karac: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.


You're got my axe vote.
 
2014-04-02 07:46:06 PM  

fusillade762: Karac: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.

And do like the UK does and restrict campaigning to a few months before the election.


We do here in Canada too. Most federal election seasons are 36 days, though they can run up to 60 days or so.  It's ridiculous to spend 18 months campaigning every 4 years.
 
2014-04-02 07:47:54 PM  

Summoner101: The only chance we have is a Democrat being elected in 2016, and really, that isn't something to rely on.


Not even that. We need a Democrat being elected in 2016 AND Democrats taking full control over both houses. The fascists need to be utterly marginalized before this country can recover.

Democrats aren't perfect. But they need to be opposed from the LEFT, not further to the right.
 
2014-04-02 07:51:41 PM  
If these assbags want to remove caps start with the one on social security.
 
2014-04-02 07:54:55 PM  

LordJiro: Democrats aren't perfect. But they need to be opposed from the LEFT, not further to the right.


By global standards, and more important, by  my personal standards, the Democrats are frighteningly conservative. The Republicans have gone so far off the map that it's not even fair to call them the "right wing" anymore. They've left the wings, gone backstage, and set the theater on fire.
 
2014-04-02 07:55:41 PM  
The lobbyists can jump in a farking lake of lava fire and die a burny burny death, hopefully taking all of their parasitic progeny with them.
 
2014-04-02 07:56:15 PM  
Fark Internet Lawyers: How does this ruling affect political corruption cases not having to do with campaign funding? Does this very refined definition of "corruption" make it harder for prosecutors to prosecute corruption cases?
 
2014-04-02 07:56:47 PM  

LordJiro: Summoner101: The only chance we have is a Democrat being elected in 2016, and really, that isn't something to rely on.

Not even that. We need a Democrat being elected in 2016 AND Democrats taking full control over both houses. The fascists need to be utterly marginalized before this country can recover.

Democrats aren't perfect. But they need to be opposed from the LEFT, not further to the right.


My point was more toward presiding over a time where they can have a couple supreme court nominations.  Scalia, despite the possibility of being a vampire, can't stay publicly alive forever.  Not to mention Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy all are coming due as well.  Granted, this will be complicated if the GOP gains and retains control of the Senate, but given the GOPs seats in contention and the presidential year, a strong Democratic candidate can swing the Senate back even if it's lost this year.
 
2014-04-02 07:58:43 PM  
It's a hard issue with all the hand-wringing over the corrupting influence of money in politics, but free speech advocates know the court got it right here and in Citizens United.  ACLU agrees that banning political expression by limiting campaign contributions violates the 1st Amendment, although they also advocate for public funding and greater transparency.  The remedy for speech perceived as harmful is more speech, not limits on speech.  And in the Internet age, who can truly claim to be silenced by limited resources?
 
2014-04-02 07:58:50 PM  
Poor Republican lobbyists. Say hello to the Democrats dominating mid-term campaign fundraising this year.
 
2014-04-02 07:59:37 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: fusillade762: Karac: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.

And do like the UK does and restrict campaigning to a few months before the election.

We do here in Canada too. Most federal election seasons are 36 days, though they can run up to 60 days or so.  It's ridiculous to spend 18 months campaigning every 4 years.


18 months is being generous. It seems like campaign season 24/7 these days.
 
2014-04-02 07:59:55 PM  

Summoner101: LordJiro: Summoner101: The only chance we have is a Democrat being elected in 2016, and really, that isn't something to rely on.

Not even that. We need a Democrat being elected in 2016 AND Democrats taking full control over both houses. The fascists need to be utterly marginalized before this country can recover.

Democrats aren't perfect. But they need to be opposed from the LEFT, not further to the right.

My point was more toward presiding over a time where they can have a couple supreme court nominations.  Scalia, despite the possibility of being a vampire, can't stay publicly alive forever.  Not to mention Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy all are coming due as well.  Granted, this will be complicated if the GOP gains and retains control of the Senate, but given the GOPs seats in contention and the presidential year, a strong Democratic candidate can swing the Senate back even if it's lost this year.


No matter what happens this year in the Senate, the Dems will gain Senate seats in 2016, even without a strong Dem presidential candidate.  Republicans have too many seats to defend.
 
2014-04-02 08:04:44 PM  

LockeOak: Fark Internet Lawyers: How does this ruling affect political corruption cases not having to do with campaign funding? Does this very refined definition of "corruption" make it harder for prosecutors to prosecute corruption cases?


No, this decision does not change the legal standard for political corruption cases.  Under federal law those have always been tough for the prosecution as it has the burden to show a quid pro quo.  The fact that the politician voted the way the donor wanted or exercised political influence in a way that benefited the donor is not enough.
 
2014-04-02 08:08:04 PM  
If money = free speech then why is bribery illegal?
 
2014-04-02 08:10:32 PM  

LockeOak: Fark Internet Lawyers: How does this ruling affect political corruption cases not having to do with campaign funding? Does this very refined definition of "corruption" make it harder for prosecutors to prosecute corruption cases?


Not really as this definition has been in place since 1976. This case is basically an application of the holding of Buckley v. Valeo.
 
2014-04-02 08:11:20 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: fusillade762: Karac: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.

And do like the UK does and restrict campaigning to a few months before the election.

We do here in Canada too. Most federal election seasons are 36 days, though they can run up to 60 days or so.  It's ridiculous to spend 18 months campaigning every 4 years.


lol pretty sure they are campaigning for 4 years every four years...
 
2014-04-02 08:15:42 PM  

Aldon: If money = free speech then why is bribery illegal?


From the main thread -
Well there are a few arguments that i know of:

1) Bribery is directly corrupting and is the clearest and easiest case to determine corruption. Thus the government wouldn't be over-inclusive in precluding it. By that i mean that general campaign donations may be corrupting, but they may not be. and offer a lot of hard line drawing problems: how much is too much, if $5000 is corrupting, why isn't $4,999? Should the number move with inflation? What about various areas of the country which have cheaper ad buys? Bribery offers a clean bright line - you give someone any amount of money in exchange for direct political favors, and boom, illegal. General limits on spending to prevent corruption can sweep up too many legitimate acts of expression that were not corruptive, and theoretically many of the harms you fear can be precluded by other less restrictive means, such as publication of donor lists and the like.

2) Bribery was illegal at the time of the framing and stayed illegal. Thus the drafters of the first amendment did not view quid pro quo expenditures as being an expressive act protected by the first amendment.

/as usually in these threads, this doesn't mean i agree with these points, but here they are.
 
2014-04-02 08:20:11 PM  
Ladies and gentlemen, I give  you the "gubbmint should be whored out to the highest bidder as the founding fathers intended" Supreme Court.
 
2014-04-02 08:32:35 PM  
Yes, yes, that's the reason.

Lobbyists are middle men.  Influence peddlers.  With this ruling, influence peddlers aren't needed.  If you have enough money you can just buy your own politician yourself, rather than through a third party distributor like K street.
lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-04-02 08:48:54 PM  
Hate it when people say that a new amendment will not help because of the First Amendment.

Uhh...a following amendment can supersede a preceding one,
IF written to do so...and correctly.


Ex: That's why prohibition ended, idiots.
 
2014-04-02 09:00:23 PM  

Aldon: If money = free speech then why is bribery illegal?


Why is Prostitution illegal too?
 
2014-04-02 09:01:27 PM  

Ambivalence: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

We can't even get a law passed right now, you think we can get a constitutional ammendment passed?  The republicans will tack on a passage about outlawing abortion while they're at it.


Congress can be bypassed. There's a handy little alternate means to propose amendments just for situations like this where Congressional movement is impossible.
 
2014-04-02 09:34:50 PM  

Mantour: Aldon: If money = free speech then why is bribery illegal?

Why is Prostitution illegal too?


Because selling your body for sex is dirty. Selling your body for power, influence, and favorable legislation is not.
 
2014-04-02 09:54:04 PM  

rogue49: Hate it when people say that a new amendment will not help because of the First Amendment.

Uhh...a following amendment can supersede a preceding one,
IF written to do so...and correctly.


Ex: That's why prohibition ended, idiots.


We don't say such an amendment is impossible, only that it would be unwise.  If the 1st Amendment gives you such heartburn that you want to cut back the protections it affords to all of us, protections even our former colonial masters envy us, you may be in the wrong country, and should perhaps take care that the portal does not injure your posterior as you exit.
 
2014-04-02 09:59:48 PM  
comicsmedia.ign.com
 
2014-04-02 10:06:55 PM  
Hmm.  That's quite a problem.  Have you tried drowning yourself in a pool of dicks?
 
2014-04-02 10:07:36 PM  

nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.


You could impeach all those horrible right wing hack activist judges who occupy the Supreme Court. They are deplorable.

Then when they are gone, Obama can appoint new justices, and lawyers can bring those cases back up, to be immediately overturned.

Whew. These right wingers are a pain in the ass, in Congress, SCOTUS and when president. So much cleanup has to be done after their devastation.
 
2014-04-02 10:11:58 PM  

nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.


You trust them to get this right?

Well, maybe.  They'd all vote for unlimited funds for themselves, and restricted funds for their opponents.
 
2014-04-02 10:13:57 PM  

Karac: nmrsnr: Constitutional amendment: Congress shall have to power to prescribe the manner and amounts in which money can be spent on elections.

It's the only way to fix this, now.

Constitutional amendment: candidates for federal office equally split a common pool of money to finance their campaigns.  Acceptance of donations is a federal offense with a mandatory prison term equal to the term of office for which you were running.

If we're going to fix it, lets go whole-ass instead of only halfway.


Hahaha, rich people don't go to jail.

Except maybe one pariah once in an age.
 
2014-04-02 10:24:11 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: rogue49: Hate it when people say that a new amendment will not help because of the First Amendment.

Uhh...a following amendment can supersede a preceding one,
IF written to do so...and correctly.


Ex: That's why prohibition ended, idiots.

We don't say such an amendment is impossible, only that it would be unwise.  If the 1st Amendment gives you such heartburn that you want to cut back the protections it affords to all of us, protections even our former colonial masters envy us, you may be in the wrong country, and should perhaps take care that the portal does not injure your posterior as you exit.


Kiss my posterior, exit this.
See that's free speech...First Amendment.


Right now, the Supreme Court is interpreting money as "free speech"
The amendment would define money as not free speech.


See how that works???


Simple...like you.
See that's free again...
 
2014-04-02 10:42:09 PM  

rogue49: 4tehsnowflakes: rogue49:

should perhaps take care that the portal does not injure your posterior as you exit.

Kiss my posterior, exit this.
See that's free speech...First Amendment.


It's speech, but since there is no government agent trying to shut it down, there is no 1st Amendment issue.  You want to curtail your rights and you don't even understand them.

Right now, the Supreme Court is interpreting money as "free speech"
The amendment would define money as not free speech.


See how that works???


I do but think it's bad policy.


Simple...like you.
See that's free again...


Worth what I paid for it, anyway.
 
2014-04-02 10:48:25 PM  
How about a constitutional amendment to fix this? Here's my suggestion:

Kill any politicians who take money from the rich. Just farking kill the farkers.

Problem solved.

/it's not illegal if it's a constitutional amendment
 
2014-04-02 10:53:03 PM  

Mantour: Aldon: If money = free speech then why is bribery illegal?

Why is Prostitution illegal too?


I farking lost i when I read that.  Very nice.
 
2014-04-02 10:57:23 PM  
The President learned about the shootings at Fort Hood right in the middle of a fundraiser at a restaurant on the Chicago River.

right in the middle of a fundraiser

fundraiser
 
2014-04-02 11:00:41 PM  

sendtodave: The President learned about the shootings at Fort Hood right in the middle of a fundraiser at a restaurant on the Chicago River.

right in the middle of a fundraiser

fundraiser


Ah....gearing up for a run for his third term, I see.

/Seriously...WTF is a SITTING PRESIDENT WHO IS INELIGIBLE TO RUN at a god damn FUNDRAISER?
 
2014-04-02 11:03:00 PM  
Simple solution ladies and gentlemen,

Since voting for a candidate is secret I suggest that the source of donations to candidates be kept secret from the candidates and elected officials. A double blind system could be implemented for campaign or other donations.
 
2014-04-02 11:04:56 PM  

Aldon: If money = free speech then why is bribery illegal?


We'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about that in a few years.
 
2014-04-02 11:08:10 PM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: sendtodave: The President learned about the shootings at Fort Hood right in the middle of a fundraiser at a restaurant on the Chicago River.

right in the middle of a fundraiser

fundraiser

Ah....gearing up for a run for his third term, I see.

/Seriously...WTF is a SITTING PRESIDENT WHO IS INELIGIBLE TO RUN at a god damn FUNDRAISER?


Leading the world.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | 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