Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Aneristic Illusions => Topic started by: LMNO on April 02, 2014, 03:19:41 pm

Title: The best election money can buy.
Post by: LMNO on April 02, 2014, 03:19:41 pm
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1)

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.
Title: Re: The best election money can buy.
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on April 02, 2014, 03:38:54 pm
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1)

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
Title: Re: The best election money can buy.
Post by: Junkenstein on April 02, 2014, 03:45:34 pm
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1)

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.
Title: Re: The best election money can buy.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on April 02, 2014, 05:46:22 pm
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1)

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.
Title: Re: The best election money can buy.
Post by: POFP on April 03, 2014, 08:37:57 pm
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:
Quote
In 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.
Title: Re: The best election money can buy.
Post by: Reginald Ret on April 03, 2014, 10:07:38 pm
Oh my.
Well, have fun in your downward spiral, I hope it gets better for you.