Future Fight

[cwolff]

I understand how the court is making the decisions on this and Citizens United. I even agree with it in a strict interpretive sense but am worried about what this means for the integrity of our elections.


In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.”

The conservative majority passed on an opportunity to strike down a limit on how much a donor can give to an individual candidate — perhaps because in Citizens United, they’d accepted the proposition that unlimited donations to “independent” third party groups didn’t lend the appearance of corruption — but Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, wrote that “limiting the amount of money a person may give to a candidate does impose a direct restraint on his political communication,” and moved to strike that provision down as well.


The court’s four-member minority issued a blistering dissent, written by Justice Stephen Breyer. He charged that the majority’s “conclusion rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts.”

Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.

Taken together with Citizens United, Breyer writes that McCutcheon “eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”


http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/02/a-blistering-dissent-in-mccutcheon-conservatives-substituted-opinion-for-fact/

[Tgo01]

The solution is simple; make campaign contributions technically gifts so the first 12,000/year can be gifted tax free but after that people are gonna have to start paying taxes on that shit.

Watch campaign funds dry up real fast while not limiting how much a person can give.

[Jarvan]

I understand how the court is making the decisions on this and Citizens United. I even agree with it in a strict interpretive sense but am worried about what this means for the integrity of our elections.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/02/a-blistering-dissent-in-mccutcheon-conservatives-substituted-opinion-for-fact/

This is one of those subjects I am torn on.

I hate money in politics. I Loathe it. I think it's one of the driving reasons our politics are so disgusting to begin with.

That being said.. telling someone how much they can contribute to a politician just seems stupid as well. There is no limit on how much a person can spend of their own money. And frankly, we all know there are so many ways around limits it isn't funny. You can only Donate 2,500 to a candidate personally? Fine, the Candidate simply has a "Dinner" and charges 30k per plate. Then you buy x amount of plates. How this isn't illegal if there is a limit is beyond me.

There is no good solution to this problem, because there is no solution to Human Nature. People don't run for office for "the good of the people". Maybe they never really did.

[Tgo01]

People don't run for office for "the good of the people". Maybe they never really did.

I would. Can I count on the PC vote if I ever run for office?

[cwolff]

I would. Can I count on the PC vote if I ever run for office?

You've clearly got my vote.

maybe we should tax the hell out of that shit. At least we get some revenue.


There is no good solution to this problem, because there is no solution to Human Nature. People don't run for office for "the good of the people". Maybe they never really did.

That's the whole thing right there. I don't even know where to begin trying to regulate this stuff. Make a law and political strategists will spend as much money as it takes on lawyers in order to figure out a way around it.

[poloneus]

The solution is simple; make campaign contributions technically gifts so the first 12,000/year can be gifted tax free but after that people are gonna have to start paying taxes on that shit.

Watch campaign funds dry up real fast while not limiting how much a person can give.


But it wouldn't be the gift giver paying the taxes. It would be the receiver. What would they care? They'll just ask for more since there is no limit.

I'd totally be a favor of passing a Constitutional Amendment granting Congress the power to set limits here. I have to agree with the Court that this is akin to a free speech issue. So let's cut out the Supreme Court and change the Constitution itself. It is that serious. Make it the 28th Amendment. I have no idea how it could be worded, but if you think politicians were for sale before, it's a whole new level now.

[Tgo01]

But it wouldn't be the gift giver paying the taxes. It would be the receiver. What would they care? They'll just ask for more since there is no limit.

Actually the one giving the gift is indeed the one responsible for paying the gift tax.

But either way you're right it probably wouldn't matter much; if they are giving away millions of dollars to political funds a few thousand in taxes isn't gonna stop them.

[cwolff]

These guys are going out to Vegas to get paid. Who's the liberal version? Soros or Bloomberg?

BTW, Adelson's worth 37 billion and is 80 years old. This shit's just fun for him. It's like making a stripper dance for a dollar and it's not like he can run out of money before he dies.


Officially, the governors were in Las Vegas to address the spring leadership meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, which has long promoted a staunchly pro-Israel and interventionist foreign policy. But their political objective was to build relationships with potential benefactors who could bankroll future campaigns.

The biggest draw was Adelson, who hosted the conference at the Venetian, his sprawling and flashy casino hotel. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, spent more than $93 million in the 2012 elections and have signaled they will spend heavily in the next presidential campaign.

[Ardwen]

I would imagine the system is devised to try to equalize Bill Gates and the average McDonald's workers value to politicians. Somehow I dont think its going to work

[Candor]

All I got to say is that if I were in charge, the "Do Not Call" list would have more teeth and foreign aid to any country that had a lot of scamming telemarketing companies calling the US would be reduced to zero.

Yeah I had a lot of telemarketing calls today and the screen for my caller ID display is broke, so I'm in a bad mood...

[Ardwen]

My one largest complaint with the system is how much contributions go across borders, Companies or people that live/exist only in Florida have no business contributing to races in state offices in Wisconsin

[Kembal]

The aggregate cap stopped someone from buying influence with an entire political party. That's now gone.

BTW, I can explain how the $30k per plate thing works, but it's actually not illegal. (2.6k goes directly to the candidate's campaign, x amount goes to the national party which spends it on behalf of the candidate, y amount goes to some other political party committee which spends it on behalf of the candidate, etc.) You can only buy 1 plate per person. It's mind-numbing though as to how much money is raised through that.

The last remnant of any campaign finance regulation is the individual cap on contributions. God help us if that's ever struck down.

[cwolff]

The aggregate cap stopped someone from buying influence with an entire political party. That's now gone.

BTW, I can explain how the $30k per plate thing works, but it's actually not illegal. (2.6k goes directly to the candidate's campaign, x amount goes to the national party which spends it on behalf of the candidate, y amount goes to some other political party committee which spends it on behalf of the candidate, etc.) You can only buy 1 plate per person. It's mind-numbing though as to how much money is raised through that.

The last remnant of any campaign finance regulation is the individual cap on contributions. God help us if that's ever struck down.

The joke of this whole thing is that your PAC can't talk to or take direction from the candidate. That's an incredible standard to regulate. Basically the honor system.

[Jarvan]

All I got to say is that if I were in charge, the "Do Not Call" list would have more teeth and foreign aid to any country that had a lot of scamming telemarketing companies calling the US would be reduced to zero.

Yeah I had a lot of telemarketing calls today and the screen for my caller ID display is broke, so I'm in a bad mood...

Caller ID doesn't matter anymore. They have programs that make it look like a local number.

[Jarvan]

The aggregate cap stopped someone from buying influence with an entire political party. That's now gone.

BTW, I can explain how the $30k per plate thing works, but it's actually not illegal. (2.6k goes directly to the candidate's campaign, x amount goes to the national party which spends it on behalf of the candidate, y amount goes to some other political party committee which spends it on behalf of the candidate, etc.) You can only buy 1 plate per person. It's mind-numbing though as to how much money is raised through that.

The last remnant of any campaign finance regulation is the individual cap on contributions. God help us if that's ever struck down.

Yes, ~I~ Can only buy one plate. BUT, I can buy 100 plates in the names of 100 friends. And the whole point is, if you think Joe doesn't get all 30k, you got another thing coming. x and y are put aside FOR Joe. It's the same thing as giving to Joe.

[cwolff]

Caller ID doesn't matter anymore. They have programs that make it look like a local number.

Skype dude. I used to make follow up calls from my apartment in Bolivia for a buddy. It was only part time for a month but we closed two deals from it. Anyway, I called people in AL and TN who'd been tele-marketed. Their only gripe is that I was in Colorado since my Skype phone # was a Denver exchange.

[Jarvan]

The joke of this whole thing is that your PAC can't talk to or take direction from the candidate. That's an incredible standard to regulate. Basically the honor system.

Just like any donation under 250 is the honor system. Seriously, if you have Soros level of money, and want to personally donate 100 million to a politician, how hard would it be to basically set up a company to use PP CC's to do it? Best thing is, you just set the company up off shores.

[cwolff]

This is off the subject but are fines tax deductible for a business? I just read that J.P. Morgan Chase saved 4 billion on their tax liability from one fine. Its not profit, but is it really the cost of doing business?

[Candor]

Caller ID doesn't matter anymore. They have programs that make it look like a local number.

True. But many companies seldom change the numbers they use to spoof, and I have learned to recognize many of them. Also 1-000-000-0000 is also obviously a red flag, but some overseas companies don't seem to understand that fact.

India seems to be the biggest offender with the most companies out to rob you with fake services via telemarketing.

[crb]

The solution is simple; make campaign contributions technically gifts so the first 12,000/year can be gifted tax free but after that people are gonna have to start paying taxes on that shit.

Watch campaign funds dry up real fast while not limiting how much a person can give.

I'm confused. Campaign contributions already are not deductible to the contributor, are you suggesting making them taxable to the recipient?

Do you perhaps foresee where that could be abused, the taxation of a political campaign? Perhaps abused by an incumbent?

Freedom is good. Free speech is good. Free political speech is necessary. I'm skeptical of any attempt to limit free political speech. I may not agree with George Soros, but you know if he wants to throw his money around making political speech, that is his right. The tragedy of living in a free country is people who disagree with get rights too, the bastards!

Everyone* still gets just 1 vote (Chicago residents and affiliates of ACORN notwithstanding). I see no need to put limits on speech in the public forum of people trying to win those votes.

[Tgo01]

I'm confused. Campaign contributions already are not deductible to the contributor, are you suggesting making them taxable to the recipient?

I was suggesting making them taxable by the person doing the gifting.

[crb]

My one largest complaint with the system is how much contributions go across borders, Companies or people that live/exist only in Florida have no business contributing to races in state offices in Wisconsin

That does annoy me, but moreso than across state lines, internationally it really annoys me. Especially when a politician running for office does a fundraising trip in Europe.... Also when Indian casinos who aren't technically under government jurisdiction fund anti-gambling ads because they don't want taxpaying competition.

But we can't silence everything that annoys us, disclosure is good though.

If we want to reserve the freedom of speech for ourselves we need to tolerate the speech of others, even the annoying people.

[crb]

I was suggesting making them taxable by the person doing the gifting.

So you're saying if someone earns money, which is taxed, and then donates the money to a political cause, they should pay a tax on it again? You want to essentially punish people for exercising political speech and in someway you imagine this would be at all permissible under our Constitution? You can't tax a right, they tried it once with poll taxes, in the south, not a good idea.

[Tgo01]

So you're saying if someone earns money, which is taxed, and then donates the money to a political cause, they should pay a tax on it again?

In the same way that someone earns money, pays taxes then gifts money to someone else (in excess of 12,000 dollars a year) they pay a tax again yes.


You want to essentially punish people for exercising political speech and in someway you imagine this would be at all permissible under our Constitution?

As I said it would follow the standard gift laws already in place. Up to 12,000 dollars tax free of free speech!

[crb]

This is off the subject but are fines tax deductible for a business? I just read that J.P. Morgan Chase saved 4 billion on their tax liability from one fine. Its not profit, but is it really the cost of doing business?

Good, that case was fucked up.

Government: JP Morgan, the economy is shit, would you please take over Washington Mutual because it is shit and we don't want it to go under.
JP Morgan: Sure, guy, I'll do you a solid and take that piece of shit over.
5 years later
Government: Hey JP, turns out Washington Mutual broke some laws, maybe we think, and well, you're loaded, and we need to distract people from Obamacare, so you're liable for the shit Washington Mutual did before you took them over at our behest because suckit. So we're taking you to court, and give our #Occupy supporters a bone. Sure, you could fight this in court, and probably win, but then you get on our regulatory shit list and do you really want to be on our regulatory shit list? Pay up or we start breaking kneecaps.

Stupidest fucking thing ever. And it guaranteed that should we ever have another financial crisis, and the government comes hat in hand looking for help, they're going to be told to fuck off. Its like the city asking you to buy a blighted house to fix it up and then fining you because the prior owner cooked meth.

[crb]

In the same way that someone earns money, pays taxes then gifts money to someone else (in excess of 12,000 dollars a year) they pay a tax again yes.



As I said it would follow the standard gift laws already in place. Up to 12,000 dollars tax free of free speech!

Like I said, you can't tax someone's exercise of the 1st amendment. Good luck trying, actually no, if you ever did try I would wish evil voodoo upon you. People who want to takes other's rights away are nazis.

[waywardgs]

Money =! speech

[Tgo01]

Like I said, you can't tax someone's exercise of the 1st amendment. Good luck trying, actually no, if you ever did try I would wish evil voodoo upon you. People who want to takes other's rights away are nazis.

Pshaw. I was being mostly facetious with my gift tax thing but this line of thinking is silly.

I have to pay a gift tax if I want to give a relative a gift but I can buy a 30,000 dollar meal (wink wink) and all of the money goes to political coffers all tax free.

It's bullshit.

[Parkbandit]

My one largest complaint with the system is how much contributions go across borders, Companies or people that live/exist only in Florida have no business contributing to races in state offices in Wisconsin

What is with all the Florida hate??? WHY!

And I disagree. If I own a business and I have 3-4 offices around the country, why couldn't I donate to a candidate in Wisconsin if the outcome will positively or negatively affect my business?

[Parkbandit]

The joke of this whole thing is that your PAC can't talk to or take direction from the candidate. That's an incredible standard to regulate. Basically the honor system.

It's bullshit. I have a friend who used to run a PAC and he had plenty of access to politicians he gave money to.

PLENTY.

[Parkbandit]

This is off the subject but are fines tax deductible for a business? I just read that J.P. Morgan Chase saved 4 billion on their tax liability from one fine. Its not profit, but is it really the cost of doing business?

Why wouldn't they be? The company got fined... the money came off it's profits which is what it's taxed upon.

[Candor]

Why wouldn't they be? The company got fined... the money came off it's profits which is what it's taxed upon.

There's something just not right about that. I'm not sure what, but a fine being deductible just doesn't seem proper...

[cwolff]

That just makes it a legitimate business expense which is a terrible standard to set. It still hurts the bottom line but fines should be post tax. I just got a $170.00 speeding ticket. Can I deduct that?

[cwolff]

Everyone* still gets just 1 vote (Chicago residents and affiliates of ACORN notwithstanding). I see no need to put limits on speech in the public forum of people trying to win those votes.

It's still 1 man 1 vote. This lets a few people determine the options you have to vote on. So you and Bill Gates each get 1 vote but he can select the people you have the right to cast 1 vote for.


Pshaw. I was being mostly facetious with my gift tax thing but this line of thinking is silly.

I have to pay a gift tax if I want to give a relative a gift but I can buy a 30,000 dollar meal (wink wink) and all of the money goes to political coffers all tax free.

It's bullshit.

It is bullshit. It's not even freedom of speech. You can speak all you want. Write letter to the editor and start a blog. This is more like freedom to be heard. If you throw enough money into the marketing you can guarantee the amount of people who are exposed to your message.

[waywardgs]

This is the friction between capitalism and democracy.

[cwolff]

This is the friction between capitalism and democracy.

LOL No doubt.

It's the modern day version of trial by combat. In this case your champion is a dude with a knife. The opponents champion is a tank platoon supported by mech infantry. The winner is God's will.

[ClydeR]

Here’s one guarantee from yesterday’s Supreme Court decision: You’re only going to see more money in politics. So if you didn’t think there was enough money in politics before yesterday, then you should be happy about yesterday’s decision. Indeed, when you add the McCutcheon decision (eliminating the aggregate contributing caps) to the Citizens United decision (providing the blueprint for creating the Super PAC era) and the end of matching funds, we’re seeing a financial arms race in American politics.

More... (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/rise-political-ultra-rich-n70711)

It will make House races more about important national issues and less about local distractions.

[Jarvan]

Like I said, you can't tax someone's exercise of the 1st amendment. Good luck trying, actually no, if you ever did try I would wish evil voodoo upon you. People who want to takes other's rights away are nazis.

I have to disagree with you here.

George Soros going on TV or standing on street corner and talking about what he would do for the country is free speech.

George giving 1 billion dollars to the "Elect Hillary Fund" is not speech. It's money. What it is used for is something else entirely. We already limit how much money can be given (Legally).

I do think taxing political donations is stupid tho. They would just find a way around them. Hell, there would be a loop hole written into it FOR them.

Maybe the best answer is to allow unlimited money to be used in campaigns.. but the loser is shot, and the winner is shot after their term is up. Imagine how many issues that would solve.

[waywardgs]

Publically fund campaigns, eliminate private donations. Problem solved.

[Warriorbird]

Publically fund campaigns, eliminate private donations. Problem solved.

Some of the problems, yes.

[Wrathbringer]

I would imagine the system is devised to try to equalize Bill Gates and the average McDonald's workers value to politicians. Somehow I dont think its going to work

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cOl_L31c0Yo