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.

(NBC News)   Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett just can't imagine how post-election campaign contributions used to repay personal loans could possibly be considered bribes   (nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Alito, John G. Roberts, majority of Supreme Court justices, favor of Sen. Ted Cruz, Justice Elena Kagan, Paul Smith, candidate's political speech  
•       •       •

2886 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jan 2022 at 4:14 PM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


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

 
2022-01-20 10:53:20 AM  
Or, for that matter, anonymously paying off the debts of a supreme court nominee.  Right, Brett?
 
2022-01-20 10:56:35 AM  
The court has long said that because money buys the ability to spread a political message, limits on expenditures implicate the First Amendment.


th.bing.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-20 11:15:37 AM  
How does it "put a chill" on their speech?  If they have the money and they spend it on themselves then good for them.

I don't give $250k to any party/candidate because A) it's not legal and B) I don't have it.

They shouldn't be able to loan ANY money to their own campaigns.   They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.
 
2022-01-20 11:34:35 AM  
So that's what Duncan Hunter spent all that money on..
 
2022-01-20 3:54:03 PM  

DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.


The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.
 
2022-01-20 4:17:07 PM  
Is anyone, anywhere still pretending SCOTUS has any legitimacy as an 'independent, non-partisan' body? I mean if so, somebody sell that person the Brooklyn Bridge already. No one is surprised at this point. Third-world theocracy is the only goal and we all know it. The only difference is that some of us love it and some hate it.
 
2022-01-20 4:19:09 PM  

menschenfresser: Is anyone, anywhere still pretending SCOTUS has any legitimacy as an 'independent, non-partisan' body? I mean if so, somebody sell that person the Brooklyn Bridge already. No one is surprised at this point. Third-world theocracy is the only goal and we all know it. The only difference is that some of us love it and some hate it.


The time has come for us to begin ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Bad rulings must be ignored, our of a sense of moral imperative. Siding with legality over morality is quite literally immoral.
 
2022-01-20 4:19:23 PM  
Farking lawyers.  Any lawyer that goes into politics should be hung upside down from their genitalia until gravity severs the connection.

Limitless money in politics.

We. Are. Farked.
 
2022-01-20 4:19:54 PM  

Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.


Came to post the same

loan your campaign money and then charge them insane interest on the loan. Contributions can be used to pay campaign debts, Just so happens the candidate is the one holding the note.

The only risk being not raising enough campaign contributions to cover your loan but considering that you are in control of which debts get paid first etc well...
 
2022-01-20 4:20:17 PM  

Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.


The very, very simple solution is you can loan as much of your personal money to your own campaign as you want (so it's not a donation). You just can't charge interest.
 
2022-01-20 4:20:46 PM  
"Repayment of a loan is never considered a gift," added Justice Samuel Alito.

Dafuq?
 
2022-01-20 4:22:01 PM  
I am actually ok with removing this limit.  I think as a core voter, why should I have to donate to a candidate until after he wins.  If he wins and I think he is worth it, I might chip a dollar or two.    If I think he is worthless, good luck getting out of the debt you put yourself into.

It might also help companies stay out of the primaries.
 
2022-01-20 4:22:07 PM  
I'm wondering if there's the 'implication' about the First Amendment that not only do you have the right to say what you want but that others must also *hear* it, regardless whether they'd agree.
 
2022-01-20 4:22:41 PM  

Blathering Idjut: "Repayment of a loan is never considered a gift," added Justice Samuel Alito.

Dafuq?


Oh, good, so if this means the government pays off my student loans, that's not a gift, just a basic necessary transaction?
 
2022-01-20 4:22:56 PM  
I can't believe the followers of a faith that sold indulgences to excuse one from sin would not be if the opinion that money corrupts.
 
2022-01-20 4:22:57 PM  

palelizard: Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.

The very, very simple solution is you can loan as much of your personal money to your own campaign as you want (so it's not a donation). You just can't charge interest.


How is anyone supposed to make money doing THAT?
 
2022-01-20 4:22:58 PM  
The current law is ridiculously corrupt yet not corrupt enough for cruz, you can and people do currently under the existing law loan their campaign 250k at 20% interest.
 
2022-01-20 4:22:59 PM  
Clearly the conservatives on SCOTUS are pro-bribery, so why hasn't Soros just bought them all off yet?
 
2022-01-20 4:24:14 PM  
You can already give

Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.


My opinion here: There shouldn't be a limit.  If they get paid interest, they need to prove they could have made that much in interest in a different investment-and pick the investment at the time the loan was made, not when it's paid back.  IE, something like corporate or government bonds, or even stocks (but, like I said, no backdating, so you can't pick the one stock that went up 1,000% over the time period).
 
2022-01-20 4:24:16 PM  
Well, they weren't ramrodded into those seats because they were imaginative...
 
2022-01-20 4:24:49 PM  
I can already start (to post part of a response and then forget I did).
 
2022-01-20 4:25:30 PM  

AdrienVeidt: I'm wondering if there's the 'implication' about the First Amendment that not only do you have the right to say what you want but that others must also *hear* it, regardless whether they'd agree.


I mean that's basically the case for the Mennonites that would pay for a free speedh license in undergrad so i had to listen to them tell me all the reasons I'm going to hell on my way to get bbq between classes.

/i miss that food truck to this day
 
2022-01-20 4:26:04 PM  
Speaking of "suddenly paying off debt"---

We still don't know what magically happened to I Like Beer's, do we.
 
2022-01-20 4:26:54 PM  

EyeballKid: I can't believe the followers of a faith that sold indulgences to excuse one from sin would not be if the opinion that money corrupts.


The faith they pay lip service to isn't Catholocism.
 
2022-01-20 4:27:00 PM  
Donald Trump is an illegitimate President, who was put in office with the help of a foreign enemy.
Every single thing he did in office should be reversed, which obviously includes his Supreme Court appointees.
Plus you have Clarence Thomas in on the sedition. So there are 3 Justices Biden should be replacing right now.
 
2022-01-20 4:27:36 PM  

GoodCopBadCop: Or, for that matter, anonymously paying off the debts of a supreme court nominee.  Right, Brett?


I'm still shocked that's never been investigated.
C'mon Democrats, do it while you still control both houses of Congress and the DOJ.
 
2022-01-20 4:28:10 PM  

palelizard: EyeballKid: I can't believe the followers of a faith that sold indulgences to excuse one from sin would not be if the opinion that money corrupts.

The faith they pay lip service to isn't Catholocism.


Or Catholicism, for that matter.
 
2022-01-20 4:29:38 PM  

austerity101: menschenfresser: Is anyone, anywhere still pretending SCOTUS has any legitimacy as an 'independent, non-partisan' body? I mean if so, somebody sell that person the Brooklyn Bridge already. No one is surprised at this point. Third-world theocracy is the only goal and we all know it. The only difference is that some of us love it and some hate it.

The time has come for us to begin ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Bad rulings must be ignored, our of a sense of moral imperative. Siding with legality over morality is quite literally immoral.


thumbs.gfycat.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-20 4:31:40 PM  

Geotpf: You can already give

Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.

My opinion here: There shouldn't be a limit.  If they get paid interest, they need to prove they could have made that much in interest in a different investment-and pick the investment at the time the loan was made, not when it's paid back.  IE, something like corporate or government bonds, or even stocks (but, like I said, no backdating, so you can't pick the one stock that went up 1,000% over the time period).


So your interest rate is just attached to some random stock you picked?
 
2022-01-20 4:35:42 PM  
Fascists need the law to be unpredictable, so that proponents of liberal democracy need to constantly explain definitions. That turns the focus on the definitions, which open up more opportiunities to change them through the instruments of liberal democracy - whether that is writing new opinions to form new preedents, or spurring the legislature to redefine basic stuff, or carving out racial, family (dads a patriarchs) and militarized exceptions (military as in a high ranking person has security interests supporting their legal exceptions). Donald Trump ha all of those discourses at his fingertips, race, patriarchy, military command and private militia command. SCOTUS therefore has many options, as long as they follow the rule of law in this. Liberal democratic lawyers and politicians will follow the procedures while the fascists will benefit from the subversion of law. Watch for more fascists to talk about "norms" instead of laws, in order to prolong the doubts and unpredictabliity, just like they've been doing since Boehner.
 
2022-01-20 4:36:59 PM  
There's an argument -- which I don't agree with -- that says money is speech and is okayed by the Constitution. There is no such right that permits a candidate to accept a penny.

Conservatives are just liars.
 
2022-01-20 4:37:13 PM  

Felgraf: Speaking of "suddenly paying off debt"---

We still don't know what magically happened to I Like Beer's, do we.


No.  No we do not.  And nobody on the Judiciary committee even seemed to care about it.
 
2022-01-20 4:38:53 PM  

GoodCopBadCop: Or, for that matter, anonymously paying off the debts of a supreme court nominee.  Right, Brett?


You know, attacks such as this on the white man will soon be illegal.
 
2022-01-20 4:39:06 PM  

Walker: GoodCopBadCop: Or, for that matter, anonymously paying off the debts of a supreme court nominee.  Right, Brett?

I'm still shocked that's never been investigated.
C'mon Democrats, do it while you still control both houses of Congress and the DOJ.


They don't want to.
 
2022-01-20 4:39:59 PM  

shroom: Felgraf: Speaking of "suddenly paying off debt"---

We still don't know what magically happened to I Like Beer's, do we.

No.  No we do not.  And nobody on the Judiciary committee even seemed to care about it.


Hey, remember when we did that whole thing where we wrote up a report about the Supreme Court that said "[shrug]"? That was fun.
 
2022-01-20 4:41:45 PM  

Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.


That loan is why we have the law that the Supremes are about to throw out.
 
2022-01-20 4:42:35 PM  

Headso: Geotpf: You can already give

Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.

My opinion here: There shouldn't be a limit.  If they get paid interest, they need to prove they could have made that much in interest in a different investment-and pick the investment at the time the loan was made, not when it's paid back.  IE, something like corporate or government bonds, or even stocks (but, like I said, no backdating, so you can't pick the one stock that went up 1,000% over the time period).

So your interest rate is just attached to some random stock you picked?


IE, when you make the loan, you should file a form saying "Instead of investing in X, I'm loaning this money to my campaign".  X could be any publicly available investment (stock, bonds, whatever).  Then, when you pay off the loan, you get whatever the investment you declared you would have made is worth.  I guess you could even lose money.
 
2022-01-20 4:43:34 PM  
Cruz's contention is that repaying the loan doesn't enrich him, it merely makes him whole.

Yea, whole.  In the sense he's wholly owned by the people shoving cash on an electected politician.
 
2022-01-20 4:44:39 PM  

Geotpf: Then, when you pay off the loan, you get whatever the investment you declared you would have made is worth. I guess you could even lose money.


And payments have to be announce in advance, so you can't just pick a day when the market is up.
 
2022-01-20 4:46:25 PM  

yakmans_dad: There's an argument -- which I don't agree with -- that says money is speech and is okayed by the Constitution. There is no such right that permits a candidate to accept a penny.

Conservatives are just liars.


But this is a self-loan.  It only applies when the candidate loans his campaign money (and wants it paid back).  A candidate can already give his campaign infinite amounts of money (say hi to Bloomberg for me).
 
2022-01-20 4:46:59 PM  

austerity101: menschenfresser: Is anyone, anywhere still pretending SCOTUS has any legitimacy as an 'independent, non-partisan' body? I mean if so, somebody sell that person the Brooklyn Bridge already. No one is surprised at this point. Third-world theocracy is the only goal and we all know it. The only difference is that some of us love it and some hate it.

The time has come for us to begin ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Bad rulings must be ignored, our of a sense of moral imperative. Siding with legality over morality is quite literally immoral.


Even the newest justices are ignoring the Supreme Court's prior rulings.
 
2022-01-20 4:47:05 PM  

Dr Dreidel: That loan is why we have the law that the Supremes are about to throw out.


I know, it's also the reason Cruz wants them to throw it out. So he can start running the same scam again. Although, who are we kidding, if he gets the law thrown out EVERYONE is going to loan their campaigns money.
 
2022-01-20 4:47:45 PM  

freidog: Cruz's contention is that repaying the loan doesn't enrich him, it merely makes him whole.

Yea, whole.  In the sense he's wholly owned by the people shoving cash on an electected politician.


Why would he need to be made whole for something he voluntarily did?
 
2022-01-20 4:48:06 PM  

Unsung_Hero: Geotpf: Then, when you pay off the loan, you get whatever the investment you declared you would have made is worth. I guess you could even lose money.

And payments have to be announce in advance, so you can't just pick a day when the market is up.


Yeah, good point.
 
2022-01-20 4:48:33 PM  

Walker: I'm still shocked that's never been investigated.


...I mean, you know who was running the show then, right?
 
2022-01-20 4:52:03 PM  

austerity101: Blathering Idjut: "Repayment of a loan is never considered a gift," added Justice Samuel Alito.

Dafuq?

Oh, good, so if this means the government pays off my student loans, that's not a gift, just a basic necessary transaction?


You would of course have to pay Federal tax on the payoff as income.
 
2022-01-20 4:52:29 PM  

Geotpf: Headso: Geotpf: You can already give

Lsherm: DoBeDoBeDo: They can GIVE the money, but they should never be able to pay themselves back.

The scam here is that they charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan, so they end up making money on the loan. A rep from California made $72K in 11 years on an initial 150K loan. You just never pay the principal back and keep raking in interest fees after you're elected.

My opinion here: There shouldn't be a limit.  If they get paid interest, they need to prove they could have made that much in interest in a different investment-and pick the investment at the time the loan was made, not when it's paid back.  IE, something like corporate or government bonds, or even stocks (but, like I said, no backdating, so you can't pick the one stock that went up 1,000% over the time period).

So your interest rate is just attached to some random stock you picked?

IE, when you make the loan, you should file a form saying "Instead of investing in X, I'm loaning this money to my campaign".  X could be any publicly available investment (stock, bonds, whatever).  Then, when you pay off the loan, you get whatever the investment you declared you would have made is worth.  I guess you could even lose money.


I feel like this could be abused using a pump and dump penny stock, you pick this stock that is .001 cent a share and then the week before the loan is up the pump begins so now the stock goes up 10,000%, the week after it shiats the bed back down to .001 cents. So now you say what would be the point, well because the money is never lost even if the pump fails and the stock gets delisted you just don't get your big interest payout.
 
2022-01-20 4:53:19 PM  

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: austerity101: Blathering Idjut: "Repayment of a loan is never considered a gift," added Justice Samuel Alito.

Dafuq?

Oh, good, so if this means the government pays off my student loans, that's not a gift, just a basic necessary transaction?

You would of course have to pay Federal tax on the payoff as income.


Throw me in jail, then, because I don't have that money.
 
2022-01-20 4:55:18 PM  
we've been through so many "burn it down" moments, I don't think there's anything that will shake people from their sleep.
 
2022-01-20 4:55:22 PM  
"Repayment of a loan is never considered a gift," added Justice Samuel Alito.

Well that's just the picture of disingenuous, ain't it?
 
Displayed 50 of 98 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.