Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
79 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: SCOTUS is insane - voids campaign donor limits rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
James Webb Space Telescope in 2018!
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I, for one, do not welcome our new one-percenter overlords


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court further loosened the reins on political giving Wednesday, ruling that big campaign donors can dole out money to as many candidates and political committees as they want as long as they abide by limits on contributions to each individual campaign.

In a 5-4 vote won by conservative justices, the court struck down limits in federal law on the total amount of money a contributor can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

The decision wipes away the overall limit of $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. It will allow the wealthiest contributors to pour millions of dollars into candidate and party coffers, although those contributions will be subject to disclosure under federal law. Big donors, acting independently of candidates and parties, already can spend unlimited amounts on attacks ads and other campaign efforts that have played an increasingly important role in elections.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140402/DACU39BO1.html
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
The last sentence is the most important part there. They can already give as much dark money as they want through other means. At least individual donations are subject to disclosure.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if this will DECREASE the number of the very rich who choose to run. In recent years, some very rich individuals ran and spent sizable fortunes since there was no limit on spending on your own campaign. Now that another spending limit has fallen, perhaps they will see less need to run themselves.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, SCOTUS is perfectly rational. They just have different goals and interests than you or me...
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What were they thinking? With this ruling they'll crush the burgeoning super-pac industry. Think of all the jobs lost cutting out the middleman in something already happening.

On a side note, the billions are disgusting. I just don't see this as changing the game significantly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looks like it's time it get into the TV commercial business.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
This will just lead to more open campaign contribution information instead of funneling money through anonymous PACs. Just think of all the CEO's that enraged lefties can go after once this information becomes public! We won't just have to limit the outrage to Mozilla!!


I suspect most people won't have a clue what you're saying here.

All they know is that Dear Leader told them to hate the Supreme Court because Citizens United and the Kochtopus.


Yeah, that Tesuji. Big fucking liberal, that one.

While the fact that these donations are more transparent is good, the fact that our government continues to be open for sale is pretty depressing.
10 
 Thumb up
6.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ed Holzman
United States
Seffner
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
As grey traces of dawn tinge the eastern sky, the three travellers, men of Willowdale, emerge from the forest's shadow. Fording the river, they turn south, journeying into the dark and forbidding lands of The Necromancer...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As if this country wasn't already an oligarchy...same ol' shit, different day.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
An important piece of information I gathered from reading up on this: the decision is not removing limits on contributions to individual candidates...that remains capped at a little over $5000. What it eliminated is the aggregate cap that existed...limiting donors to just under $50000 across all candidates in a year. Essentially, the ruling allows donors to contribute to more candidate, but not to contribute more to each candidate.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
An important piece of information I gathered from reading up on this: the decision is not removing limits on contributions to individual candidates...that remains capped at a little over $5000. What it eliminated is the aggregate cap that existed...limiting donors to just under $50000 across all candidates in a year. Essentially, the ruling allows donors to contribute to more candidate, but not to contribute more to each candidate.


Correct. Now a party leader can openly ask for a million or so from a donor, then split that million up between the various candidates and party coffers to make it all legal. I'm sure they'll come up with a cool name for the people who do this and host exclusive meetings for them to tell the elected officials what they expect for their money.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Vondra
United States
Charlottesville
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The best government money can buy!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walker
United States
Birmingham
Alabama
flag msg tools
"The significance of a person's life is determined by the story they believe themselves to be in." - Wendell Berry "If nothing lies beyond the pale of death, then nothing of value lies before it." - SMBC
badge
Thy mercy, my God, is the theme of my song, the joy of my heart and the boast of my tongue. Thy free grace alone, from the first to the last, has won my affection and bound my soul fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Who brought this suit? I recently was told that there were only ~700 people who ran into the donor limit last election cycle...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
twomillionbucks wrote:
Who brought this suit? I recently was told that there were only ~700 people who ran into the donor limit last election cycle...


Shaun McCutcheon of Alabama. He apparently likes giving $1776 to lots of Republican candidates.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jage
United States
Greensboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rshipley wrote:
twomillionbucks wrote:
Who brought this suit? I recently was told that there were only ~700 people who ran into the donor limit last election cycle...


Shaun McCutcheon of Alabama. He apparently likes giving $1776 to lots of Republican candidates.


That's actually funny.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Cuimhnigidh ar Luimnech agus feall na Sassonach! Erin go Bragh! Remember Limerick! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
An important piece of information I gathered from reading up on this: the decision is not removing limits on contributions to individual candidates...that remains capped at a little over $5000. What it eliminated is the aggregate cap that existed...limiting donors to just under $50000 across all candidates in a year. Essentially, the ruling allows donors to contribute to more candidate, but not to contribute more to each candidate.


Give it time. I am sure another 5-4 partisan ruling in favor of legal corruption is in our future.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
cooler king wrote:
The best government money can buy!


With all the money spent, you'd think we'd have a better one by now.

:shake:
You do, do you think those who give the money to the winners do not think they are getting value for money? They are getting the governemtn they want, it's only people like you who are not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
twomillionbucks wrote:
Who brought this suit? I recently was told that there were only ~700 people who ran into the donor limit last election cycle...
The politicians (well their interns) themselves I suspect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jasper
Netherlands
Leiden
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is it possible for foreign interests to donate to various candidates in America? If so how easy is this to do (assuming potential donors want to stay out of the limelight)? Is that already happening?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I suppose this means that all the liberals here are suddenly going to turn into conservatives because of this?
Pssh, whatever.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lurch Adams
msg tools
actuaryesquire wrote:
I wonder if this will DECREASE the number of the very rich who choose to run. In recent years, some very rich individuals ran and spent sizable fortunes since there was no limit on spending on your own campaign. Now that another spending limit has fallen, perhaps they will see less need to run themselves.


At best, it might mean more Scott Walkers, in higher public office.

At worst, it will mean more Scott Walkers, in higher public office.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lurch Adams
msg tools
Elfbane wrote:
No, SCOTUS is perfectly rational. They just have different goals and interests than you or me...


rational =/= self serving

Thomas is the only one who actually has ruled on anything that directly benefited himself personally (obviously against the rules), some of the others are basing their activism on emotion, political agenda, and general incompetence imo.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lurch Adams
msg tools
djgutierrez77 wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
This will just lead to more open campaign contribution information instead of funneling money through anonymous PACs. Just think of all the CEO's that enraged lefties can go after once this information becomes public! We won't just have to limit the outrage to Mozilla!!


I suspect most people won't have a clue what you're saying here.

All they know is that Dear Leader told them to hate the Supreme Court because Citizens United and the Kochtopus.


Yeah, that Tesuji. Big fucking liberal, that one.

While the fact that these donations are more transparent is good, the fact that our government continues to be open for sale is pretty depressing.


LOL at being happy about the Supreme Court opening up a PayPal account to make it easier for the few to buy even more favors at our expense. All this does is open up another option for cronies, it doesn't guarantee more transparency. For all we know the Kochs will donate $100 to Hillary's campaign 'transparently' and then $100M to attack her secretly. You really don't get it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Venga2 wrote:
Is it possible for foreign interests to donate to various candidates in America? If so how easy is this to do (assuming potential donors want to stay out of the limelight)? Is that already happening?

Foreign nationals cannot donate to campaigns, unless they have a green card (legal permanent residency). Domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies can only contribute under some probably Byzantine guidelines about the foreign parent not providing any of the funding.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vincent Perry
United States
La Jolla
California
flag msg tools
Woot!
badge
I have overtext!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As long as the state has the power to intrude into our lives, people who want to use the state will find a way to use money to influence the state, legally or illegally. Passing more laws will have about as much effect as laws making drugs illegal has on our ability to procure drugs.

Take the power away from the state, and the money will dry up of its own accord.
5 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
Venga2 wrote:
Is it possible for foreign interests to donate to various candidates in America? If so how easy is this to do (assuming potential donors want to stay out of the limelight)? Is that already happening?

Foreign nationals cannot donate to campaigns, unless they have a green card (legal permanent residency). Domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies can only contribute under some probably Byzantine guidelines about the foreign parent not providing any of the funding.


But since those "social welfare organizations" that run political ads don't have to disclose donors, foreign interests can use those to influence elections.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.