Skip to content
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.

(Courthouse News Service)   Sometime the writer gets it. "Limits on super PACs stump top Massachusetts court"   (courthousenews.com) divider line
26
    More: Facepalm  
•       •       •

1505 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2023 at 12:30 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
eurotrader [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-06 8:09:49 PM  
That sounds like some republican justices are soliciting for an offer to ignore common sense limits to political spending by a small extreme group of political sponsors.
Ethics don't apply to republican Justices is the issue see SCOTUS for multiple examples.
 
Benevolent Misanthrope [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-06 9:02:56 PM  
"You're the Lessig who writes on all this stuff and I'm hesitant to disagree with you," said Justice Scott Kafker, but he disagreed anyway and said the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision seemed to foreclose limits on political contributions. "Maybe it's silly reasoning, but it's the reasoning," he said.

FFS.
 
jaylectricity [TotalFark]
2023-02-06 10:10:13 PM  
Between 2010 and 2018, a total of $1 billion was donated to super PACs by a mere 11 people,


Disgusting.
 
mikalmd
2023-02-07 12:33:35 AM  
Money talks ..
 
Bith Set Me Up
2023-02-07 12:35:53 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size



There should be no billionaires and no big money in politics.
 
Gyrfalcon [TotalFark]
2023-02-07 12:36:32 AM  
The minute anyone said "political donations are free speech" this was going to happen, and here we are, and now we're stuck with it. There is no unwinding this particular clock.

How much someone donates to a political campaign in dollars has exactly zero to do with "freedom of speech" but that's what the previous batch of Justices under Kapo Roberts decided, and, well, here we are. Nobody has found a logical way out of the conundrum: "How is giving money to a candidate anonymously in any way related to 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech'?"
 
austerity101 [BareFark]
2023-02-07 12:37:59 AM  
It's insane to me that our country has somehow decided that money is speech while also ignoring the fact that this means a choice few get way, way more speech than anyone else will ever have access to.
 
SomeAmerican
2023-02-07 12:39:21 AM  
I could buy that publicly donating to a charity is free speech.  You are saying see how much I support this cause.

But secretly donating to a super-pac that hides donor's identities is no more free speech than buying a pizza is.
 
seanpaul.bobadilla
2023-02-07 12:43:37 AM  
If money is speech then limits on individual contributions is also unconstitutional. So are most any-bribery and anti corruption laws. If you can limit those you can limit super pacs.
 
mistahtom
2023-02-07 12:44:32 AM  
How much dark money went into hiding Santos?
 
Ragin' Asian [recently expired TotalFark]
2023-02-07 12:59:02 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
buravirgil
2023-02-07 12:59:57 AM  
"Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons 1/3
Youtube xVk77VQuPAY
 
1funguy
2023-02-07 1:20:07 AM  
Politics should be run like a Punewood Derby.
4 wheels
4 nails
1 block of wood.

Make whatever you can, good luck.

You can see the crap and you can also tell who cheated.
 
1funguy
2023-02-07 1:20:29 AM  

1funguy: Politics should be run like a Punewood Derby.
4 wheels
4 nails
1 block of wood.

Make whatever you can, good luck.

You can see the crap and you can also tell who cheated.


Pinewood
 
FatherChaos [TotalFark]
2023-02-07 1:22:41 AM  
Super PACs aren't allowed to directly coordinate their expenditures with candidates, but that means little in practice because big donors are allowed to communicate with candidates, and it's not uncommon for a PAC to be run by someone who previously worked in a candidate's campaign and knows exactly what the campaign needs.

It's quid pro quo, every time. Investments, if you will. "I gave you shiattons of money to win because I want these things in return. Make sure I get them or I fund your opponent next time."

It's bribery and corruption and it needs to stop.
 
whither_apophis [TotalFark]
2023-02-07 1:25:35 AM  
A total of $1 billion was donated to super PACs by a mere 11 people ... The list includes billionaire George Soros and recent presidential candidates Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.

Way to pick out the only three left, left-center billionaires donors, Mr. Article Writer
 
Amoment
2023-02-07 1:27:25 AM  
Money is not speech.
It's bribery
 
Shaggy_C
2023-02-07 1:46:00 AM  
Seems relatively straightforward. The Supreme Court said that there can be no limit independent expenditures. There can be strict limits on donations directly to candidates. As long as the ballot measure is setting rules for the latter and not the former, it's fine.
 
Night Train to Wakanda
2023-02-07 2:03:12 AM  

jaylectricity: Between 2010 and 2018, a total of $1 billion was donated to super PACs by a mere 11 people,


Disgusting.


Just signal boosting.

No wonder occupy movement terrorized them.
 
Night Train to Wakanda
2023-02-07 2:06:24 AM  

Shaggy_C: Seems relatively straightforward. The Supreme Court said that there can be no limit independent expenditures. There can be strict limits on donations directly to candidates. As long as the ballot measure is setting rules for the latter and not the former, it's fine.


Doesn't it get tiring being a fence rider? Just saying "the law is the law and there's nothing we should find objectionable" is just an exhausting viewpoint to uphold.
 
dp3 [BareFark] [OhFark]
2023-02-07 2:20:44 AM  

SomeAmerican: I could buy that publicly donating to a charity is free speech.  You are saying see how much I support this cause.

But secretly donating to a super-pac that hides donor's identities is no more free speech than buying a pizza is.


This is the biggest problem with dark money. If I can't tell whose speech I'm hearing, then it shouldn't get the same level of protection.

Sure, we're all posting under pseudonyms, but the speech can be directly referenced. So if PACs want unlimited money, then we should be able to know who exactly is speaking.

Either that or make the donation limit proportional, but good luck figuring out what 1/350,000,00th of a speech is worth.
 
DoctorCal [TotalFark]
2023-02-07 2:59:38 AM  

1funguy: 1funguy: Politics should be run like a Punewood Derby.
4 wheels
4 nails
1 block of wood.

Make whatever you can, good luck.

You can see the crap and you can also tell who cheated.

Pinewood


Poonwood Darby
 
Northern
2023-02-07 5:19:03 AM  

jaylectricity: Between 2010 and 2018, a total of $1 billion was donated to super PACs by a mere 11 people,


Disgusting.


That's just the money we know about.  Thanks to Citizens United, anonymous money from hostile foreign nations has and is flooding our political system.
 
ansius
2023-02-07 6:10:18 AM  
The headline: "If you can't contribute millions of dollars to support a political candidate, does that violate free speech?"

Almost gets it. "If you can't contribute millions of dollars to support a political candidate yet other people can, does that diminish free speech?"

Is your free speech diminish if another person can drown you out by outspending you 1,000,000 times?

To what extent does free speech exist if some people cannot buy into the marketplace of ideas yet other people effectively own the exchange?
 
Warlordtrooper
2023-02-07 7:29:55 AM  

Bith Set Me Up: [Fark user image image 850x693]


There should be no billionaires and no big money in politics.


I would honestly question if they even made all that money back?  Is that ROI even worth it because at some point of spending you would save more money not spending anything and just paying taxes. I wonder what that dollar amount is

However donations are free speech and much like gun control nothing can be done without a constitutional amendment
 
WhackingDay [TotalFark]
2023-02-07 8:39:06 AM  
FTFA: "...a very small handful of the elite have an enormously outsized say in election results. (The list includes billionaire George Soros and recent presidential candidates Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.)"

Soros! Drink!

/ seriously, you point out Soros and Bloomberg but are just gonna ignore Theil, Zuck, Musk and the Mercers?
// actually I don't know if Musk comprehends the idea of giving money away
/// you know the drill
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want the rest of the Farking story? Try

TotalFark

More threads. More community. More Farking.

learn more | sign up
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.