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.

(Slate)   Alaska lawsuit could upend the campaign finance landscape   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Followup, out-of-state contributions, out-of-state donors, United States, free speech, federal constitutional law, out-of-district donors, federal court, Circuit Court  
•       •       •

2831 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2017 at 10:53 AM (48 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-08-12 08:28:25 AM  
"I thought it was pretty restrictive and it held up my ability to speak out."

Speak out and influence your own special interests, you mean.
 
2017-08-12 08:40:01 AM  
This is what I hate about Citizens United.  Money spent - or the lack thereof - does NOT change your ability to free speech.  It only changes where/how you can spend your money.  If our elections were "equal", then everyone gets the same level of "voice".  But we know that's not the case because it's incredibly easy to buy a politician if you have the money to do so.
 
2017-08-12 09:25:31 AM  
At best, I see this preventing donations from individuals. But corporations could just claim that they do business in the state and are part of that community. Even if they don't manufacture or have offices there, they can claim their products are sold.
 
2017-08-12 09:29:59 AM  
"freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." - There's no way to separate money and speech in an increasingly sophisticated and technological world but it's hard to see any reason that local officials should be running national campaigns or be beholden to people who live and work thousands of miles away. I hope this law is upheld and more States adopt similar statutes.
 
2017-08-12 09:34:03 AM  

kbronsito: At best, I see this preventing donations from individuals. But corporations could just claim that they do business in the state and are part of that community. Even if they don't manufacture or have offices there, they can claim their products are sold.


That's not how that works.
 
2017-08-12 10:24:19 AM  
When money becomes free speech, free speech becomes bribery.
 
2017-08-12 10:54:12 AM  
He can't donate $100 but Hobby Lobby can spend millions. Yes, something in wrong there.
 
2017-08-12 10:59:59 AM  

kbronsito: At best, I see this preventing donations from individuals. But corporations could just claim that they do business in the state and are part of that community. Even if they don't manufacture or have offices there, they can claim their products are sold.


Corporations cannot donate directly to candidates.
 
2017-08-12 11:03:04 AM  
The precedent set by citizens United is going to squash any effort to restrict donations to constituents on the grounds that money is speech.

It also ignores that these politicians affect more than just the local yokels with their votes, so assuming these candidates shouldn't be watched by people outside their bubble is looney.
 
2017-08-12 11:07:50 AM  
But it won't.

State campaign laws are written by the people being paid off.
 
2017-08-12 11:08:20 AM  
Preventing out of state money from buying elections?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-08-12 11:09:47 AM  

Emposter: But it won't.

State campaign laws are written by the people being paid off.


You know the law limiting out-of-state contributions is already on the books, right?
 
2017-08-12 11:16:22 AM  

Voiceofreason01: "freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." - There's no way to separate money and speech in an increasingly sophisticated and technological world but it's hard to see any reason that local officials should be running national campaigns or be beholden to people who live and work thousands of miles away. I hope this law is upheld and more States adopt similar statutes.


That poster was brought to you by the Koch Brothers and the GOP. . .helping ensure that only the wealthy are in control.
 
2017-08-12 11:24:07 AM  

Descartes: Preventing out of state money from buying elections?

[img.fark.net image 600x339]


Simple solution, but it'd take an amendment, of course: No money can be spent to support a campaign or influence any voting issue unless you are able to vote for it yourself. And, in the case of corporate money, unless the issue is being voted on where the organization's headquarters is located.

Wouldn't fix national elections, but it'd end things like Utah funding propaganda machines in CA elections.
 
2017-08-12 11:31:39 AM  

SpaceyCat: This is what I hate about Citizens United.  Money spent - or the lack thereof - does NOT change your ability to free speech.  It only changes where/how you can spend your money.  If our elections were "equal", then everyone gets the same level of "voice".  But we know that's not the case because it's incredibly easy to buy a politician if you have the money to do so.


Sadly, this concept doesn't originate in Citizens United. I think Buckley v. Vallejo is the genesis.
 
2017-08-12 11:33:10 AM  

Silverstaff: Voiceofreason01: "freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." - There's no way to separate money and speech in an increasingly sophisticated and technological world but it's hard to see any reason that local officials should be running national campaigns or be beholden to people who live and work thousands of miles away. I hope this law is upheld and more States adopt similar statutes.

That poster was brought to you by the Koch Brothers and the GOP. . .helping ensure that only the wealthy are in control.


So...you think the Koch brothers(who "live" in Kansas) should be allowed to donate large sums of money to politicians in Alaska?
 
2017-08-12 11:38:37 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Silverstaff: Voiceofreason01: "freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." - There's no way to separate money and speech in an increasingly sophisticated and technological world but it's hard to see any reason that local officials should be running national campaigns or be beholden to people who live and work thousands of miles away. I hope this law is upheld and more States adopt similar statutes.

That poster was brought to you by the Koch Brothers and the GOP. . .helping ensure that only the wealthy are in control.

So...you think the Koch brothers(who "live" in Kansas) should be allowed to donate large sums of money to politicians in Alaska?


They can't, really. The best they can do is the $2,700 individual limit. Their power comes from the effetively unlimited outside "issue" spending, which isn't a part of this lawsuit.
 
2017-08-12 11:39:35 AM  

SFSailor: Descartes: Preventing out of state money from buying elections?


Wouldn't fix national elections, but it'd end things like Utah funding propaganda machines in CA elections.


Are you citing the mormons and Prop 8?
There's a lot of outside $$ trying to dismantle monument designation and public access here in UT. 
State reps getting out of state reach arounds.
 
2017-08-12 11:40:44 AM  

The English Major: "I thought it was pretty restrictive and it held up my ability to speak out."

Speak out and influence your own special interests, you mean.


That's the implication, but in this very specific case, he was chipping a Bennie to his brother in law.
 
2017-08-12 11:46:26 AM  

SFSailor: Descartes: Preventing out of state money from buying elections?

[img.fark.net image 600x339]

Simple solution, but it'd take an amendment, of course: No money can be spent to support a campaign or influence any voting issue unless you are able to vote for it yourself. And, in the case of corporate money, unless the issue is being voted on where the organization's headquarters is located.

Wouldn't fix national elections, but it'd end things like Utah funding propaganda machines in CA elections.


Corporations can't vote, therefore your first rule would render the second one unnecessary. I still don't get why a fictional entity such as a corp can spend money politically.
 
2017-08-12 11:48:21 AM  

SFSailor: Descartes: Preventing out of state money from buying elections?

[img.fark.net image 600x339]

Simple solution, but it'd take an amendment, of course: No money can be spent to support a campaign or influence any voting issue unless you are able to vote for it yourself. And, in the case of corporate money, unless the issue is being voted on where the organization's headquarters is located.

Wouldn't fix national elections, but it'd end things like Utah funding propaganda machines in CA elections.


I would fall all over myself to support said amendment.
 
2017-08-12 11:49:51 AM  
Oh, when it hit the Supreme Court, Comrade Gorsuch will make sure it will not have an effect on the Citizen's United ruling.
 
2017-08-12 11:50:28 AM  

Stoker: Oh, when it hit


hits
 
2017-08-12 11:51:32 AM  

SpaceyCat: This is what I hate about Citizens United.  Money spent - or the lack thereof - does NOT change your ability to free speech.  It only changes where/how you can spend your money.  If our elections were "equal", then everyone gets the same level of "voice".  But we know that's not the case because it's incredibly easy to buy a politician if you have the money to do so.


In Israel, politicians can take donations from out of country and non-citizens.  Last election around 90% of Bibi's money came from overseas.  Something like 85% of that came from four people in the United States.

This is the Republicans goal.
 
2017-08-12 11:53:06 AM  

grchunt: SpaceyCat: This is what I hate about Citizens United.  Money spent - or the lack thereof - does NOT change your ability to free speech.  It only changes where/how you can spend your money.  If our elections were "equal", then everyone gets the same level of "voice".  But we know that's not the case because it's incredibly easy to buy a politician if you have the money to do so.

Sadly, this concept doesn't originate in Citizens United. I think Buckley v. Vallejo is the genesis.


It's Valeo. You're correct that Buckley v. Valeo is the case that started the idea of money is speech. That case was decided in 1976. Funny how that is just about the time that income and wealth inequality started rising after decades of shared prosperity, eh?
 
2017-08-12 11:56:40 AM  
all it is going to do is create local PAC to launder money from out of state to local elections. You just cannot be so blatent about it, like giving money directly from yourself

Citizen United was the avalanche, it is too late for the pebbles to vote
 
2017-08-12 11:56:40 AM  

Descartes: Preventing out of state money from buying elections?

[img.fark.net image 600x339]


Very agreed.  Such consensus.
 
2017-08-12 12:44:03 PM  

Serious Black: grchunt: SpaceyCat: This is what I hate about Citizens United.  Money spent - or the lack thereof - does NOT change your ability to free speech.  It only changes where/how you can spend your money.  If our elections were "equal", then everyone gets the same level of "voice".  But we know that's not the case because it's incredibly easy to buy a politician if you have the money to do so.

Sadly, this concept doesn't originate in Citizens United. I think Buckley v. Vallejo is the genesis.

It's Valeo. You're correct that Buckley v. Valeo is the case that started the idea of money is speech. That case was decided in 1976. Funny how that is just about the time that income and wealth inequality started rising after decades of shared prosperity, eh?


I've come to the conclusion that the 1970s were an awful time full of terrible people.
 
2017-08-12 12:57:37 PM  
Corporations are not people.  Money is not speech.
 
2017-08-12 01:05:51 PM  
I hope this happens. I wonder if we could do the same in WA and all the way down to city level. Could Seattle ban outside money in city elections? Columbus? Detroit? Whatever local impoverished berg happens to be near you?
 
2017-08-12 01:44:05 PM  

SirBarsalot: Corporations can't vote, therefore your first rule would render the second one unnecessary. I still don't get why a fictional entity such as a corp can spend money politically.


I was on a phone, so I was unhelpfully terse.  I feel like there is an important role for some advocacy groups, but also believe it's not the government's job to determine which advocacy groups are valid and which aren't.  Much as I may despise the NRA's fearmongering and lies, their existence is necessary if I'm going to believe things like GLAAD and the ACLU are important.  So, maybe, "for-profit organizations may not spend any money influencing election issues.  Not-for-profit advocacy organizations may... but only if their donor records, employee rolls, and financial records are *completely* public information."  Something like that?  I'd say "can only spend money where their donors live," but that's probably too limiting to some of their causes, and too easily circumvented.

Serious Black: I would fall all over myself to support said amendment.


Feel free to take the idea and run with it.  I'd certainly contribute to any candidate who supports it... until doing so is, gratefully, finally, no longer constitutional.

I think I am particularly sensitive to the issue of outside influence because I lived in downtown San Francisco for about a decade, and got more than sick and farkin' tired of hearing everything from friends in the suburbs to the East Bay Express and Contra Costa Times telling my how to vote on city, and only _city_, ballot issues and candidates.
 
2017-08-12 02:00:28 PM  

SFSailor: it's not the government's job to determine which advocacy groups are valid and which aren't.


Wait what? So it's fine with you that one of the legislators in my State keeps inviting a shady advocacy group(consisting of one guy and a PO box) to testify in the legislature on her ongoing attempts to inject Christianity into State law?
 
2017-08-12 02:37:27 PM  

Voiceofreason01: SFSailor: it's not the government's job to determine which advocacy groups are valid and which aren't.

Wait what? So it's fine with you that one of the legislators in my State keeps inviting a shady advocacy group(consisting of one guy and a PO box) to testify in the legislature on her ongoing attempts to inject Christianity into State law?


It's not the government's job to determine what advocacy is legitimate and what isn't. That's a dangerous and slippery  slope.  As long as you're allowed to voice your counter position, and other advocates are given similar time and opportunity to testify, that's what should be happening.

Every organization started as a guy with a PO box, or close to that.

Now, churches taking political positions? Helllllllll no. That should immediately eliminate their nonprofit status.  If you want to advocate a political position, open up your books, donor list, and employee rolls.
 
2017-08-12 02:59:45 PM  

qorkfiend: Emposter: But it won't.

State campaign laws are written by the people being paid off.

You know the law limiting out-of-state contributions is already on the books, right?


In Alaska, which has nothing to do with my post.  My comment stands.
 
2017-08-12 03:21:14 PM  

Emposter: qorkfiend: Emposter: But it won't.

State campaign laws are written by the people being paid off.

You know the law limiting out-of-state contributions is already on the books, right?

In Alaska, which has nothing to do with my post.  My comment stands.


So you're talking about states other than Alaska in a thread about a lawsuit in Alaska over an Alaska state law regarding contributions to Alaska state campaigns.

Ok. Good job, I guess.
 
2017-08-12 05:14:14 PM  

qorkfiend: Emposter: qorkfiend: Emposter: But it won't.

State campaign laws are written by the people being paid off.

You know the law limiting out-of-state contributions is already on the books, right?

In Alaska, which has nothing to do with my post.  My comment stands.

So you're talking about states other than Alaska in a thread about a lawsuit in Alaska over an Alaska state law regarding contributions to Alaska state campaigns.

Ok. Good job, I guess.


In a thread with a headline and article about an article discussing how this lawsuit will change other states' laws.

So...yes.
 
2017-08-12 08:42:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Voiceofreason01: Silverstaff: Voiceofreason01: "freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." - There's no way to separate money and speech in an increasingly sophisticated and technological world but it's hard to see any reason that local officials should be running national campaigns or be beholden to people who live and work thousands of miles away. I hope this law is upheld and more States adopt similar statutes.

That poster was brought to you by the Koch Brothers and the GOP. . .helping ensure that only the wealthy are in control.

So...you think the Koch brothers(who "live" in Kansas) should be allowed to donate large sums of money to politicians in Alaska?

They can't, really. The best they can do is the $2,700 individual limit. Their power comes from the effetively unlimited outside "issue" spending, which isn't a part of this lawsuit.


They could also donate several thousand dollars to each of a hundred different PACs, run by similarly-minded but different small groups, who each donate to the same candidates. If the PACs each contribute to at least 3 candidates each, then each PAC can give more to each candidate's campaigns. Properly structured, they could easily give hundreds of thousands of dollars to each favored campaign completely legally. As long as there is no crossover between boards and there are no memos crossing between then, they are viewed as independent even if the donor list are virtually identical.
 
2017-08-12 09:00:26 PM  

SFSailor: SirBarsalot: Corporations can't vote, therefore your first rule would render the second one unnecessary. I still don't get why a fictional entity such as a corp can spend money politically.

I was on a phone, so I was unhelpfully terse.  I feel like there is an important role for some advocacy groups, but also believe it's not the government's job to determine which advocacy groups are valid and which aren't.  Much as I may despise the NRA's fearmongering and lies, their existence is necessary if I'm going to believe things like GLAAD and the ACLU are important.  So, maybe, "for-profit organizations may not spend any money influencing election issues.  Not-for-profit advocacy organizations may... but only if their donor records, employee rolls, and financial records are *completely* public information."  Something like that?  I'd say "can only spend money where their donors live," but that's probably too limiting to some of their causes, and too easily circumvented.

Serious Black: I would fall all over myself to support said amendment.

Feel free to take the idea and run with it.  I'd certainly contribute to any candidate who supports it... until doing so is, gratefully, finally, no longer constitutional.

I think I am particularly sensitive to the issue of outside influence because I lived in downtown San Francisco for about a decade, and got more than sick and farkin' tired of hearing everything from friends in the suburbs to the East Bay Express and Contra Costa Times telling my how to vote on city, and only _city_, ballot issues and candidates.


I've toyed with the idea of (irony of ironies) a network of state and national PACs to focus on this issue. You need both Congress and the state legislatures to sign off on it. Connected PACs can send money to one another at will, letting you focus for example on special elections without draining the local piggy bank. Running ads that are just large font type could be effective.
"Tired of all the political ads?"
"So are we."
"[Opposing candidates listed here] like them."
"Vote for them for more political ads."
"Or support candidates that want to stop the flood of out of state money."
"Brought to you by Citizens United Against Political Ads."
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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