Maine is attempting to throw a monkey wrench into Super PAC's. This article explains what is going on.
I'm a bit of a lonely voice on behalf of the Citizens United vs FEC decision. I thought it was correctly decided and still think so. However, the Maine case brings up an interesting situation. The advent of Super PAC's came came from 2 court decisions. The article spells that out. Just to clarify, a regular PAC can donate directly to a candidate but does not allow actual corporate funds. Super PAC's cannot donate to or coordinate with candidates but does allow corporate funds. So many people think that this is how corporations are running the country. Bear in mind that only about 10% of Super PAC donations come from corporations. The vast, vast majority of these funds come from wealthy individuals and the amount they can donate is unlimited. This is where the Buckley vs Veleo decision comes into play. Funds can be limited if even an appearance of quid pro quo exists.
What Maine is trying to do is make that connection. Triggering Buckley and thereby allowing them to set a limit of $5000 per donor. I am sympathetic to their cause but reserve the right to change my mind based on the Circuit Court's decision. In every likelihood, this will end up before the SCOTUS.
First off, any one person or entity (corporation) that is affected by laws that congress did or may pass should be able to use their resources to promote a candidate that will be in alignment with their interests. So if you're a tax paying/regulated corporation, you should absolutely be able to spend your bank account to promote a candidate that is in alignment with the interests of your corporation. Having said that, I don't like entities like George Soros (through his foundation) having that kind of influence but as my opinion stands now, that's something I have to live with as a by product of my opinion. Of course the problem arises when you're promoting (buying) a candidate with your dollars. That's the tricky part.
Publicly funded campaigns, anything else is inviting corruption over for dinner.
Public funding for presidential campaigns was in effect starting in 1976. After 2008, no candidate chose to accept the public funding. They could raise much more directly and indirectly. I suppose you could outlaw donating money to a candidate but since there are no limits on what a candidate can spend on themselves, only billionaires would run. That has 1A protection. I think the main vehicle for quid pro quo is super pac's. Maybe even just pac's. If what you mean by corruption is quid pro quo, that is covered under Buckley v Valeo. Also, people tend to concentrate on the presidential race. Pac's and Super Pac's can have a hell of an impact on down ballot offices. Ask Massie about that. Also the cost of funding all political campaigns would be monumental.
Time and time again the left has been compelled to gut the 1A anytime there's an opportunity for power or to address the Issue Of The Day (AIPAC).
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
All I know is that I want money out of politics. No big campaign slush funds and no income of any kind beyond the wages funded by the taxpayer. Greedy people should think about it and then go, nah fuck that.
And no slinging fucking crypto and no slinging fucking chinese gold shoes and no slinging fucking chinese gold watches and no slinging fucking chinese gold phones and definitely no slinging fucking chinese bibles. Those kinds of soulless people can go eat a big ol bag of dicks.
Yeah. All I know is that I want the sun to rise in the West and set in the East. We are both just as likely to get what we want. China you say. I bet they don't spend any money on elections.
Many sunsets ago I used to do work for large corporations. One example was a paint company based in Riverside CA. The CA government came along and said your air needs to be cleaner. Company X said we have invested in the best technology available and our air is much cleaner than other companies you don't regulate. CA, we don't care, we have new standards and if you want to do business in CA, you'll invest in new technology to meet what we want. Company X, It's much cheaper to move to AZ so we'll see ya CA. Good bye 200 jobs.
Company X should absolutely be able to spend money to get people elected that are not extreme nut wings. Who do you suppose will shepherd those industries if they can't spend money to promote candidates that align with their future? And since they are taxed, they deserve representation.
If there are no politicians that are willing to work with businesses to help keep jobs, then you're not going to make things better from buying politicians, because the only ones that are for sale, are pieces of shit. Yes you may save the jobs at your site, but you're injecting poisonous greed into the our national bloodstream that will unquestionably screw others.
Everyone is welcome to keep at it though, I'm sure it will work great one of these times..
How about no family members hawking "art"?
Definitely a slippery slope, but yes let's look into who's buying those because that should be public information. Don't like it, then don't sell it. Maybe not as instantly slimy as jr and eric being in bed with palantir and other defense companies with rich daddy spoon feeding them no-bid contracts, but whatever. Obama's book outrage is looking pretty hysterical these days..
The amount of time that politicians, especially congressmen, spend fund raising, is insane. I saw Nick Gelespie interview an X democrat campaign staffer. She said the same thing. Dialing for dollars. It takes up most of their time. There were some other interesting issues in this interview.
Link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ6pRdOL3yU&t=945s
I find it interesting that so many down voted my last post saying companies should be able to contribute to candidates that align with their interests. I think those same people would have no problem if Yamaha contributed to a candidate that wanted more riding areas.
TM
The Citizens United ruling is very unpopular among people who don't really know what the ruling was. A group of people, Citizens United, made a movie about Hillary when she was running for president. The FEC ruled that they could not show the movie within a certain period of time before the election because it contained electioneering. All the court did was rule against the FEC on a 1A violation. You cant stop a person, corporation, labor union or other like minded group from exercising their 1A rights. 1A It blocks the government from restricting a person or group of persons from exercising their right to speech, particularly political speech. It's that simple. There was another ruling some time after that that was the real catalyst for super pacs.
Not sure it's fair to complain about that distinction, because look at the thread title and then the first post about super pacs. If you're now talking about speechnow, then you know that citizens united was the foundation for it, so citizens united works for both just fine. They were also whambam back to back rulings, nothing that would count as being some time later, so maybe you're talking about something other than speechnow..?
There were 2 rulings after CU that encouraged super pacs. Speechnow and McCutcheon both struck down limits on spending by corporations. The CU ruling was certainly an enabler but it was more concerned with the FEC's rules of not allowing political speech within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. When you look at Kennedy's opinion, it showed how almost ridiculous the rule was especially when it came to publishing. The rule was also very unevenly enforced depending on which party had the the executive power.
I think this is backwards thinking. Citizens and individuals is what made this country great. Not businesses or corporations. It’s the people and freedom that attracted people to build a life here.
It’s backwards thinking to give entities more rights and influence than citizens.
If you took all the money that existed, divided it up evenly among every person, it would be just a matter of a few years before the same people would control the wealth. So let's tax those bastards who sell us widgets and make money, then, when the government spreads it around, you can give it right back to those bastards through a higher priced widget. And there you have it, they still get their $$s.
TM
Meaning?
Pit Row
All this"tax the rich" is just a tax on ourselves. It's a big circle that leads right back.
TM
You described how any economy and inflation can work I guess but this is a weird angle to take, to me anyway.
I’d much rather have billionaires and corporations pay their fair share of taxes for things like infrastructure, schools, healthcare, veteran care etc then the folks like me and you.
A rising tide lifts all ships and a top heavy one ends up at the bottom of the ocean.
The First Amendment is a real bitch for those that don't like whatever side they're fighting against.
The rights of a person or entity aren't to be diminished simply because they have money...which is lost on the "Democrat Socialists" running NYC...and they're gonna get their asses handed to them by SCOTUS...but, I digress.
I agree with my brother from the LBC...however, Maine can't step on the rights of thee entities, either.
When you "Tax the RICH!" and "Tax the Evil Corporations"...you don't see how they're ultimately jus' gonna pass ti on?
Look at this Tax The Rich scheme in NYC...Tax the EVIL BASTARDS that have a nice "2nd home" in the city...as if they DON'T already pay exorbitant PROPERTY TAXES...as if they don't come to the city and SHOP and pay exorbitant SALES TAXES...as if they don't go to the best restaurants...the best venues...and shell out ALL SORTS OF CASH...?
Anyhoo...
It's almost like people INTENTIONALLY ignore the reality of thongs; because, they want what others have and they're gonna TAKE IT.
Well, good luck with that.
Per Capita...who pays what, per person, is being ignored.
EAT THE RICH! (Aerosmith)
Why isn't everyone's fair share the same?
Because...
It's NOT really about "fair".
It's about jealousy and hatred.
Hence, NY, Cali and most of "Big City America" are doomed and the wise folk are jus' gonna move away and leave that stupidity behind.
My wife had to go to downtown Los Angeles, yesterday. She was blown away by how it's actually WORSE than what's shown and told in the media.
Corporations are taxed as an entity. Just like a person. Remember the slogan "No taxation without representation". If you don't like corporations having a say in government, then stop taxing them. And soggy I would have hoped that you wouldn't be THAT GUY who uses the totally bullshit phrase "pay their fair share". We may be a bunch of dirtbikers but we are not all low information Democrats who think that phrase means something.
Sir, please end that last sentence with...
"...not that there's anything wrong with that. Oh, wait. Yes, there is." 🤣
Great point, btw.
What is their fair share?
Is this an argument against taxing them at all? I’d rather start with a bigger pot to begin with than to pass the buck onto the middle and lower class. This country allowed these people to become successful beyond their wildest dreams the least they could do is pay there fair share.
NYC will be an interesting test bed. Those people with 2nd homes in nyc have 3, 4, and 5th homes in Tahoe and park city and LA so I don’t think they are contributing as much to the economy as your argument indicates. And we pay all those taxes you referenced on top of paying our share of fed and state taxes from our paychecks.
Trickle down economics isn’t the answer.
Sorry, supply side economics is, and always will be, the money pump that drives everything.
Taxing the rich ???
You're just robbing from someone who's a job creator.
Whether it be their business, or the things they spend their earned income on. Homes, cars, boats, planes, etc...
Somebody is employed building all of those.
Thus creating payroll that "trickles down, and out" further into our economy.
People living off of our taxes, create nothing. Never have they ever contributed to my income, or standard of living.
Mine comes from the free spending of those evil rich. Not the money forcibly removed from them due to taxation.
"Tax the rich", is right down there with other asinine phrases like, defund the police, etc...
Post a reply to: Citizens United......again