News:

It is our goal to harrass and harangue you ever further toward our own incoherent brand of horse-laugh radicalism.

Main Menu

The best election money can buy.

Started by LMNO, April 02, 2014, 03:19:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

LMNO

Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions

Basically, there's no longer a cap on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign or PAC.

Maybe we should just skip the entire "voting" part, and just weigh the amount of money a candidate has collected by election day.

Roly Poly Oly-Garch

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 02, 2014, 03:19:41 PM
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions

Basically, there's no longer a cap on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign or PAC.

Maybe we should just skip the entire "voting" part, and just weigh the amount of money a candidate has collected by election day.

:kingmeh:

Just...fuck
Back to the fecal matter in the pool

Junkenstein

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 02, 2014, 03:19:41 PM
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions

Basically, there's no longer a cap on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign or PAC.

Maybe we should just skip the entire "voting" part, and just weigh the amount of money a candidate has collected by election day.

This could actually have some very interesting impacts on the prices of various precious metals. I can't help but feel somewhat in favour of it. I'd rather know someone won an election with gold painted bricks than by the margins that "first past the post" produces. At least with bricks there's the effort of painting them and moving them about. The current UK system isn't quite as demanding for candidates.

More relevant to the OP, at least we will now seen "honest" elections of a sort. Provided you substitute the names of the candidates for their most affluent patron at least. We could pretend that these people haven't been doing it for years anyway by using a number of committees and influence groups. At least now, I suppose they could be a little more direct about their interests.
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on April 02, 2014, 03:19:41 PM
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions

Basically, there's no longer a cap on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign or PAC.

Maybe we should just skip the entire "voting" part, and just weigh the amount of money a candidate has collected by election day.

On the other hand, money didn't help the Koch brothers in the last two elections.

Not saying it's right, mind you.

And there never was any law against the PAC ads on TV concerning the ACA, etc, which are far more influential than a campaign blitz.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

POFP

An idea was brought to my attention: It's starting to look like the third thing to go (#1 Citizens United vs FEC took away limits on campaign spending, #2 This court ruling took away the total cap on yearly donations) might be the caps on individual yearly contributions to specific candidates, parties, etc. But, you know, as long as we still have the FEC, we'll be able to see the names and donations of the shitheads buying our government officials.

Anybody think it'll go that far?

Oh, and I found this statement misleading:
QuoteIn his written opinion, Justice Breyer said Wednesday's decision would allow 'a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate's campaign.'

This is misleading because this implies that one can simply donate millions of dollars in a single donation to a single campaign. It wouldn't be in a single donation, it would be a collection of donations due to the current individual contribution limit (say, $5,000 to every Democrat in the House, Senate, etc. and the maximum donation to the presidential campaign). You could buy a "side" with millions of dollars, currently, but you could not buy a specific candidate for millions of dollars. He was right about buying the party, not the campaign. Now, of course, this is all in disregard of Super-PACS, which have no limit, and are anonymous.

Basically, I'm not liking where this is going. We already had issues with it before this case yesterday.
This Certified Pope™ reserves the Right to, on occasion, "be a complete dumbass", and otherwise ponder "idiotic" and/or "useless" ideas and other such "tomfoolery." [Aforementioned] are only responsible for the results of these actions and tendencies when they have had their addictive substance of choice for that day.

Being a Product of their Environment's Collective Order and Disorder, [Aforementioned] also reserves the Right to have their ideas, technologies, and otherwise all Intellectual Property stolen, re-purposed, and re-attributed at Will ONLY by other Certified Popes. Corporations, LLC's, and otherwise Capitalist-based organizations are NOT capable of being Certified Popes.

Battering Rams not included.

Reginald Ret

Oh my.
Well, have fun in your downward spiral, I hope it gets better for you.
Lord Byron: "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."

Nigel saying the wisest words ever uttered: "It's just a suffix."

"The worst forum ever" "The most mediocre forum on the internet" "The dumbest forum on the internet" "The most retarded forum on the internet" "The lamest forum on the internet" "The coolest forum on the internet"