Skip to content
 
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.

(Vox)   SCOTUS agrees to hear case that will make us nostalgic for Citizens United   (vox.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

4585 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2021 at 12:43 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2021-04-17 9:44:12 AM  
fark THE ACLU!
 
2021-04-17 10:19:50 AM  
The best democracy money can buy.

/Not really
 
2021-04-17 10:59:59 AM  
We used to keep it in the family at least.  This whole deal with Russia and China funding the GOP is not cool.
 
2021-04-17 11:10:47 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: We used to keep it in the family at least.  This whole deal with Russia and China funding the GOP is not cool.


The GOP would like to make it very much harder to investigate things like Russia's shenanigans in 2016.
 
2021-04-17 12:49:15 PM  

edmo: Marcus Aurelius: We used to keep it in the family at least.  This whole deal with Russia and China funding the GOP is not cool.

The GOP would like to make it very much harder to investigate things like Russia's shenanigans in 2016.


What Chet Americanman does with his rubles is his business.
 
2021-04-17 12:50:43 PM  
HAIL HYDRA
 
2021-04-17 12:54:14 PM  
Some one should be monitoring the conservative SCOTUS's bank accounts to see if their vote has been bought.
 
2021-04-17 12:55:05 PM  
Good thing McConnell is on record that business shouldn't be butting in to politics.  I'm sure SCROTUS will consider that.
 
2021-04-17 12:56:57 PM  
Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.
 
2021-04-17 12:57:36 PM  
They already have the ability to spend unlimited money on campaigns and keep some of it secret. The problem is that the money we do know about hurts brands when people get pissed a company supports some specific aholes or policies. The logical next steps are to increase the ability to hide their political donations.
 
2021-04-17 12:57:49 PM  

Moroning: Some one should be monitoring the conservative SCOTUS's bank accounts to see if their vote has been bought.


Thomas doesn't need to be bought, he just votes against America for the love of the game.
 
2021-04-17 12:58:35 PM  

theteacher: fark THE ACLU!


You can't spell PLUOTCRAT without LU...C...A which is ACLU backwards almost

Think about it.

/You won't think about it
 
2021-04-17 1:01:54 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


sounds like someone hates the free market.
 
2021-04-17 1:03:43 PM  
It's finally time to make Franklin president!
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2021-04-17 1:07:11 PM  
If they do that they're inventing a duty to not consume products and services from corporations and businesses who fund policies and politicians that people don't support.

Refrain from doing any business with all companies until your certain of their political sentiments.

Target says people who need bathroom may use any bathroom they need. When a Target store got torched, Target said, "it's just stuff, it doesn't matter, Black Lives Matter". I'll shop at Target.

I know Disney is a menace to civilization about matters of copyrights and I've held that against them since 1998. They've not condemned Ron DeSantis who criminalized protests, legalized vehicular homicide and is an obvious bioterrorist.
 
2021-04-17 1:07:26 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


How's your boycott of MLB going?
 
2021-04-17 1:08:57 PM  
Great empires, kingdoms, oligarchies, confederations, and democracies don't just die.  They always have forces pushing them to destruction.  It is an active process.  Once accomplished, the most common phrase is "Who knew?"

It's much like partying without masks during a pandemic.  Who could have known the consequences?
 
2021-04-17 1:09:31 PM  
You know, I have to imagine that industries like tobacco are looking at these campaign contributions and wondering why they are not allowed to advertise on TV or use cartoon characters in their advertising.

I have said that current political speech, which overwhelmingly negative, flippant, and poorly contextualized is inherently harmful to the public.  The idea that they are expanding the current paradigm of political speech instead of making it far more stringent toward truth and context is just awful.
 
2021-04-17 1:11:17 PM  

Fart_Machine: jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.

How's your boycott of MLB going?


Great, he only watches home games, away games, and game that affect whether or not his boys will make it as a wildcard this year. He's really stigginit to those New York elites.
 
2021-04-17 1:11:21 PM  
Fark my farking typing.
I'm eating lunch and my brain turns to spaghetti when my attention deficit meds fade off.

Apologies, I'm vaguely understandable I hope.

Don't pick on Biden for stuttering.
Don't pick on me for brain stutters.
Our hearts are generally in the correct places, even if we go wonky.
 
2021-04-17 1:12:26 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


Anyone who uses "traditional" as an excuse to oppress people doesn't deserve to be listened to or respected
 
2021-04-17 1:13:19 PM  
Unlike the NAACP in the 1950s, in other words, the Americans for Prosperity plaintiffs largely raise speculative fears that, by disclosing their major donors to one government agency, that information may somehow - in violation of California state regulations - wind up in the hands of another agency, which might target those donors. (Or, in the case of the law center, that the donor information might wind up being discovered by a terrorist organization located on the other side of the globe, which will then target American donors to the law center.

That's weird. On Fark I'm even reminded that the court is rather rigid on certain things... ie: harm needs to be shown, not speculative harm.
 
2021-04-17 1:16:10 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


Except the article points out that getting courts to exempt non-profits from disclosure laws because of possible harmful acts against members and donors is an already established practice. This case, instead, seeks to simply neuter disclosure laws outright.
 
2021-04-17 1:19:15 PM  
If you want the protections and advantages that our society grants to non-profits -- and their donors -- then you disclose your donors publicly.  That shouldn't be hard.

If you don't want to disclose your donors, you can report your revenues and expenses in aggregates, and pay taxes.  And your donors don't get to use their anonymous advocacy as a tax deduction.

And, hey... while we're fundamentally evaluating the roles and benefits and costs of non-profits in society, let's reexamine the assumptions and exemptions we've given religious -- and "religious" -- organizations, eh?
 
2021-04-17 1:22:58 PM  

theteacher: fark THE ACLU!


The ACLU is not mentioned in the article. Go take your medication.
 
2021-04-17 1:27:58 PM  
Per the article, 8 of 9 justices supported the disclosure requirements within Citizens United; 4 of whom have since left the court; with three new conservative justices coming on.  Most likely then, unless someone flips, we're looking at that original 1 of 9 opposing disclosure, plus the three new conservatives.  So, uphill battle for the anti-disclosure group.
 
2021-04-17 1:31:53 PM  
This country is such a shiathole.
 
2021-04-17 1:44:59 PM  

cocozilla: jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.

Anyone who uses "traditional" as an excuse to oppress people doesn't deserve to be listened to or respected


Traditional marriage is between a man, 700 women, and 300 concubines.
 
2021-04-17 1:45:07 PM  
"Similarly, the Thomas More Law Center "introduced a letter from a contributor who chose to make a $25 contribution anonymously out of fear that ISIS would break into the Law Center's office, obtain a list of contributors and target them."

lolwut.jpg
 
2021-04-17 1:49:22 PM  
But to fully understand it, it's important to keep in mind the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010)...While five of the justices who heard Citizens United voted to dismantle much of the nation's campaign finance laws, eight justices also voted that the government has fairly broad authority to require advocacy groups to disclose major funders of their political activity.

I'm not a court watcher. I know justices change their opinions sometimes based on who else is on the court.

But my math says we still have 5 of the same justices who voted to uphold disclosure before.
 
2021-04-17 1:50:36 PM  

tyyreaunn: Per the article, 8 of 9 justices supported the disclosure requirements within Citizens United; 4 of whom have since left the court; with three new conservative justices coming on.  Most likely then, unless someone flips, we're looking at that original 1 of 9 opposing disclosure, plus the three new conservatives.  So, uphill battle for the anti-disclosure group.


I didn't see your comment before I hit submit on my own.
 
2021-04-17 1:52:43 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


When you say 'traditional marriage' what you are really saying is 'prima noctua'. Turns out you are just too farkin dumb to know what words mean.
 
2021-04-17 1:52:51 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


Maybe people shouldn't donate to things they aren't willing to admit that they support.
 
2021-04-17 1:55:21 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


LOL.  What sh*ttily disingenuous language.  A person can be "pro traditional marriage" without making it illegal for everyone else to get married.

PS this is what "traditional marriage" looks like.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-17 1:56:34 PM  

shinji3i: Moroning: Some one should be monitoring the conservative SCOTUS's bank accounts to see if their vote has been bought.

Thomas doesn't need to be bought, he just votes against America for the love of the game.


And yet his wife keeps getting paid.
 
2021-04-17 1:59:34 PM  
As Democracy slowly fades away. The few with money will rule over the many without.
 
2021-04-17 2:00:28 PM  
"The core question in Americans for Prosperity is whether this fear that an inadvertent disclosure might happen and that such a disclosure might lead to consequences for donors is sufficient reason to invoke constitutional protections intended to shield organizations like the NAACP in the Jim Crow era."

Rich wyoipo want to use protections designed to protect POC from them, to further concentrate minority power interests -- which will make voter suppression easier.
 
2021-04-17 2:00:54 PM  
I hope everyone realizes this is the real reason there was such a push to stack the court with conservatives.  The river of free money must flow.  None of these conservative politicians really give a squirt of piss about abortion.  They had multiple instances to do something about it and did NOTHING.  The only thing they need are obedient evangelical voters and endless cash from big money supporters.
 
2021-04-17 2:01:29 PM  
Conservatives always need boots to lick and as the United States has no formal aristocracy they lick the moneyed class's.
 
2021-04-17 2:13:47 PM  

tyyreaunn: Per the article, 8 of 9 justices supported the disclosure requirements within Citizens United; 4 of whom have since left the court; with three new conservative justices coming on.  Most likely then, unless someone flips, we're looking at that original 1 of 9 opposing disclosure, plus the three new conservatives.  So, uphill battle for the anti-disclosure group.


I'm starting to think we shouldn't have elected Trump in 2016
 
2021-04-17 2:14:16 PM  
Citizens United did not prevent Joe Biden being elected the POTUS.
Citizens United did not prevent the Democratic Party from taking control of both houses of Congress.
 
2021-04-17 2:17:32 PM  

Fart_Machine: jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.

How's your boycott of MLB going?


There are some MLB players who were in diapers when jjerkwad started trolling.
 
2021-04-17 2:27:02 PM  

jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.


You want speech without consequences or responsibility. Shocker, that.
 
2021-04-17 2:29:43 PM  

theteacher: fark THE ACLU!


Dammit. Now I'm going to have to throw another $100 at them just for your outburst
 
2021-04-17 2:33:35 PM  

Dodo David: Citizens United did not prevent Joe Biden being elected the POTUS.
Citizens United did not prevent the Democratic Party from taking control of both houses of Congress.


Yes, Citizens United is not why we can't get anything done in Congress.

Democrats are why we can't get anything done in Congress.
 
2021-04-17 2:34:11 PM  

Moroning: Some one should be monitoring the conservative SCOTUS's bank accounts to see if their vote has been bought.


They make $250k+ (currently) for life in what may be the most secure job in this country. I'd be surprised if money was a huge motivator when they are pondering their personal ethics
 
2021-04-17 2:34:31 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: We used to keep it in the family at least.  This whole deal with Russia and China funding the GOP is not cool.


Old and busted: "I may be a criminal lunatic, but I'm an AMERICAN criminal lunatic!"

New GQP hotness: "Nazis and other fascists not only welcomed but encouraged."
 
2021-04-17 2:36:30 PM  

Pin Fiften Clob: jjorsett: Maybe disclosure would be okay if we hadn't entered an era where fanatics descend on political targets that fund the "wrong" things, like what happened to the CEO of Mozilla when he donated to a pro traditional marriage ballot initiative.

sounds like someone hates the free market.


Read the article. A lot of disclosure protections were necessary when considering the KKK's intentions for dealing with NAACP contributors
 
2021-04-17 2:39:06 PM  
media.gettyimages.comView Full Size
=$
 
2021-04-17 2:46:20 PM  

erik-k: Marcus Aurelius: We used to keep it in the family at least.  This whole deal with Russia and China funding the GOP is not cool.

Old and busted: "I may be a criminal lunatic, but I'm an AMERICAN criminal lunatic!"

New GQP hotness: "Nazis and other fascists not only welcomed but encouraged."


Wow. The Joker has more scruples than the farking Republican Party.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.