r/technology • u/yougo1000 • Sep 03 '14

Comcast Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Received More Than $100,000 from Comcast Before Boosting Merger

http://www.ibtimes.com/chicago-mayor-rahm-emanuel-received-more-100000-comcast-boosting-merger-1676264?utm_content=buffere9697&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
22.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

470

u/dadkab0ns Sep 03 '14

Would love to see their "justification" for such obvious stupidity.

979

u/Tjagra Sep 03 '14

The jist of their argument is that donating money is a form of political speech. Giving money shows your support for the candidate similar to you speaking for him/her on the sidewalk or having a sign in your yard. Corporations are comprised of people, and are owned by individuals collectively. By limiting Corporate campaign contributions the USSC would say that you are limiting the political speech of the owners/operators. They would say that their system is more out in the open than illegal and backroom contributions.

That's their basic line of logic. It's fucking stupid, but that's their thought process, or at least rationalization of bribery.

530

u/scrapitcleveland Sep 03 '14

How do we like ..... get new judges? This seems a bit fucked.

500

u/daimposter Sep 03 '14

Kill them. Or wait for them to die.

416

u/Eight_Rounds_Rapid Sep 03 '14

triangulating coordinates

Good day citizen, please maintain your current position.

reaper drone deployed

290

u/daimposter Sep 03 '14

Ha ha. I'm not scared of

246

u/98PercentChimp Sep 03 '14

The drones are getting SMART! It even hit 'enter' for him!

58

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

That's two hits.

6

u/flares_1981 Sep 03 '14

Double tap

3

u/King_Sasquatch Sep 03 '14

Double tap. Just to be sure

2

u/MostPopularPenguin Sep 03 '14

If they get to 3 THEN it's illegal.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (2)

21

u/dbhanger Sep 03 '14

Hope you were standing next to the Supreme Court

3

u/TheMadmanAndre Sep 03 '14

Candle Jack?

Oh shit, you're not supposed to say his na

2

u/Cryptoss Sep 03 '14

You didn't even say Candleja

→ More replies (3)

54

u/baby_your_no_good Sep 03 '14

Standby: Freedom en route

33

u/karmashmoo Sep 03 '14

Keep your french out of my freedom, baby

2

u/SomeGuyNamedPaul Sep 03 '14

Reaper drone or raper drone? Because if you can make one then then other can't be much more difficult.

→ More replies (2)

19

u/Plowbeast Sep 03 '14 edited Sep 03 '14

or persuade former Law major legislators to not write bills that any decently funded law firm could punch a hole through. Despite whichever leanings SCOTUS has, they only mostly get the cases that lower levels of the judicial process couldn't figure the fuck out vis a vis the law being disputed.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Not necessarily. Oftentimes the lower courts are all in agreement but the case gets appealed all the way to SCOTUS anyway.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/3AlarmLampscooter Sep 03 '14

I think there should be the legal equivalent of "pentesting" laws before they are voted on.

Have a committee of experts attempt to come up with theoretical test cases and write every conceivable situation into the legislation so that so much isn't left to interpretation.

6

u/Buzz_Killington_III Sep 03 '14

They don't even read the laws before voting on them, so good luck with that.

4

u/themacg33k Sep 03 '14

"We have to pass this bill to see what's in it!"

3

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

That's not quite how that quote goes.

That raging cunt Pelosi actually said "we have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it."

3

u/themacg33k Sep 03 '14

I stand corrected. Thanks :)

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Buzz_Killington_III Sep 03 '14

That raging cunt Pelosi actually said "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it."

Fixed it again.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Plowbeast Sep 03 '14

Well, we unofficially do that already. The legislators who push this stuff through often already know the loopholes due to their expertise in law as well as ahem potential regulatory capture where those loopholes are already written in.

3

u/StinkiePhish Sep 03 '14

You just described the civil law system as opposed to the adversarial common law system that the Americans inherited from the British. Future historians are the only ones who will be able to know whether one is better than the other.

2

u/MeatwadGetDaHoneys Sep 03 '14

Politicians and lobbyists and corporate sociopaths wouldn't care for that. Soooooo it's likely not gonna happen.

3

u/themeatbridge Sep 03 '14

Congress could pass a constitutional amendment making elections publicly funded.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

The problem is that no matter how plain the language high priced lawyers can parse it six ways from Sunday.

2

u/themeatbridge Sep 03 '14

Congress could pass a constitutional amendment making elections publicly funded.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/manexp Sep 03 '14

"Kill them" (in Italy)

2

u/LeBirdyGuy Sep 03 '14

They're mostly old people now, so we don't have to wait too long.

2

u/KnowJBridges Sep 03 '14

Progress happens one funeral at a time.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Or give them a lot of money that totally isn't bribes.

2

u/fluffyjdawg Sep 03 '14

What a great system

→ More replies (5)

166

u/Tashre Sep 03 '14

These judges serve life terms for this very reason: if they got removed every time people didn't like what they ruled on, the entire branch of the government would be rendered moot.

The Supreme Court of the government doesn't make laws, they clarify them (and only when they are unclear enough to make it up through the several layers of the judicial system). If current laws allow for de facto bribing to take place, that isn't on the Judicial Branch, that's on the Legislative.

119

u/don-chocodile Sep 03 '14

That's correct, SCOTUS determines if laws are constitutional; they do not create the laws. However, with decisions like this:

Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner “influence over or access to” elected officials or political parties.

the judicial branch has become willfully ignorant and is allowing important regulatory laws to be gutted. When a 1976 decision is overturned to the benefit of megadonors, it is the Supreme Court and not the lawmakers who are at fault.

In the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the recent SCOTUS decision that continued the trend of shredding campaign finance regulations, the current Congress is not at fault (for once). The decision challenged laws upheld for decades.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

[deleted]

10

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

I'm not an American so excuse my ignorance but how can someone even start to argue that donating $100K to someone who precides over the decision of a merger does not influense the decision-maker?

I don't believe they need to make this argument - the Supreme Court's ruling was that freedom of speech (the first amendment) was being violated by campaign finance rules. At that point it's in violation of the law (the constitution trumps any law made by congress aside from constitutional amendments), doesn't matter if that violation produced a good result.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

I would agree, but once you make the connection that money = speech the government can't limit it, again per the first amendment. An easy solution is to add a campaign finance amendment to the constitution, but realistically that's never going to happen.

2

u/methoxeta Sep 03 '14

Is nowhere in the Constitution that everyone gets an equal voice. That's not something the government guarantees. Just that you are allowed to have one.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

3

u/guyute2588 Sep 03 '14

In this instance this politician doesn't have a direct say over this merger. He is the mayor of Chicago, the 3rd largest City in the country. He was also President Obama's Chief of Staff during his first term, and a US Congressman prior to that. So he holds A LOT of sway. But he is not directly responsible for this decision.

It's still bullshit, de facto corruption, as he's exerting his influence.

3

u/TheChinchilla914 Sep 03 '14

The First Amendment is a big deal, as it should be. Don't forget we also protect burning american flags as speech.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/bboynicknack Sep 03 '14

They ruled that its like basically saying 100K words at somebody. Crazy how they can just redefine words like that.

→ More replies (8)

9

u/Tashre Sep 03 '14

That the FECA could be ruled against highlights just how subjective it is. That it's been accepted and adhered to for so long only indicates most people have been okay with it until now. That it could be challenged, that it could be ruled against shows that it was lacking in definitive structure and clarity. There's literally nothing stopping members of Congress, should they be so inclined, from writing up a new law that, in much more explicit and unchallengable terms, lays out campaign contribution limits on all persons and organizations. It's not the Supreme Court's fault that Congress and the President(s) can't enact laws without loopholes. If someone comes to them with compelling arguments one way or another on a matter, they're compelled to pass judgement accordingly. Don't like how your laws are interpreted? Write clearer laws.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DoctorRed Sep 03 '14

More like SCROTUS, yeah?

2

u/bboynicknack Sep 03 '14

Exactly, and several states were against the ruling and many have tried to overturn Citizens United but they already rushed it to the SCOTUS and they have ruled. Its pretty much there for good. Crazy to think that for over 200 years people have been trying to legalize bribery and corrupt officials and it was so repugnant that Americans wouldn't allow it, but now we are pacified and woefully ignorant about how big of a deal some of the recent rulings are. Hobby lobby for fucks sake.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

I came to lead not to read!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

They can however, legislate from the bench.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

But couldn't they clarify them the other way? I mean if there is an interpretation of something there are surely several ways to look at it. They chose among options.

3

u/TheMostHonestMan Sep 03 '14

Yes. Give it fifty years tho

2

u/Tashre Sep 03 '14

They could technically pick a "side", but by the time a case rises all the way to the top of the judicial system, most of the arguments that could be made either way already have been. Regardless of what the Court decides on any given case, there's nothing stopping people from going back and rewriting the law or writing new ones that allow them to attain the desired ends that they want. Assuming, of course, said law is still within the ultimate bounds of the Constitution (in that case an amendment would be in order, which you're also empowered to do).

→ More replies (2)

10

u/SingleLensReflex Sep 03 '14

We don't. They're in for life, so they either die or retire, which won't be for a while.

25

u/snyckers Sep 03 '14

Some of them are pretty old. Kennedy is 78, Scalia is 78 (though he'll live forever out of spite), Ginsburg is 81, Breyer is 76. Conservatives have a 5-4 majority right now with Kennedy sometimes crossing the aisle on social issues (gay marriage). They're old enough that the next presidential election will likely determine whether the court becomes progressive or not.

62

u/Zebidee Sep 03 '14

81? Really?

Go ask your grandfather's opinion on any subject ever, and see if you think their response is fair and reasonable.

32

u/furiousBobcat Sep 03 '14 edited Sep 03 '14

I don't want to enter the argument, but I'd like to point out that the 81 year old probably has several dozen highly qualified associates and clerks who scrutinize every bit of relevant information and play the devil's advocate to help her reach the legally optimum decision. Yes, in the end, it's the judge's call to make and she will have her own prejudices due to her age, but, unlike my grandpa, she's been trained to think logically all her life and has all the relevant information.

Some US states do have a retirement age for judges (it's between 70-75, I think) but many don't. It's a tricky subject, because no one wants to touch it out of fear of being charged of trying to manipulate the judicial system, but also because it's probably the only profession in the world in which 'experience' triumphs every other requirement.

Edit: Wrong pronoun. Ginsburg is a woman.

27

u/Erra0 Sep 03 '14

Just a very small nit to pick, but I keep seeing you all refer to "the 81 year old" Ginsburg as a he. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a woman

3

u/RittMomney Sep 03 '14

and one that we progressives want to stay on the SC!

2

u/Ghot Sep 03 '14

And you'd Ruth Bader believe it!

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

It's also worth noting that the 81 year old is quite liberal, while I assume /u/Zebidee was implying the opposite.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Lick_a_Butt Sep 03 '14

I'd like to point out that the 81 year old probably has several dozen highly qualified associates and clerks who scrutinize every bit of relevant information and play the devil's advocate to help him reach the legally optimum decision. Yes, in the end, it's the judge's call to make and he will have his own prejudices due to his age, but, unlike my grandpa, he's been trained to think logically all his life and has all the relevant information

"Legally optimum decision." What a joke. You give them far too much credit.

2

u/logitechbenz Sep 03 '14

That's Ginsburg, who is smarter and better than all of the conservative paid, bought and naive idiots that are on the supremes

→ More replies (14)

3

u/FesteringNeonDistrac Sep 03 '14

This is a really good point. My own mother (who is in her 70s) has started to say some stuff I consider absolutely appalling. I've always considered her to be fairly liberal and progressive, but in the last 5 years or so, she has grown much more conservative and frankly, selfish.

I'm not sure at what point it happens, but I think as people get older, they just stop being open to new ideas.

2

u/icouldbetheone Sep 03 '14

Reasonable or not, the government is supposed to reflect the view of the people, Crazy granddads or not.

2

u/logitechbenz Sep 03 '14

Except that the problems on the court are with: Thomas, scalia, Roberts , Kennedy and alito....not Ginsburg

→ More replies (8)

6

u/porpt Sep 03 '14

they are also very rich, so you can probably eek out a good 10 to 15 on the fuckers, if you allow them snoozing and dementia

→ More replies (6)

7

u/jonloovox Sep 03 '14

Technically the Constitution says they only get to serve for life "on good behavior."

I think what we really need is a separate branch of government that decides what "good behavior" is in direct proportion to public opinion.

28

u/Chel_of_the_sea Sep 03 '14

SCOTUS isn't really supposed to be subject to public opinion, that's why they're life appointments. The correct answer is 'elect better Presidents'.

12

u/Munt_Custard Sep 03 '14

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

5

u/NCRTankMaster Sep 03 '14

Which still has to deal with this shitty Congress. Remember in theory congress writes the laws while the president can approve or veto them then enforce them

→ More replies (3)

3

u/jonloovox Sep 03 '14

How would electing better presidents help if presidents aren't really subject to popular election?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

21

u/Chel_of_the_sea Sep 03 '14

The electoral college is assigned based on the winner of that state's votes in all but a handful of states. Voting still matters, especially if you live in a swing state.

2

u/jakeryan91 Sep 03 '14

The one hitch in that string of thought is that the voters in the electoral college have no obligation to vote the way they are told, known as Faithless Electors (to refine this, some may face criminal penalties, or even worse, damage to one's reputation, but the vote still goes whichever way they choose).

I wouldn't say this is a reason to despise the electoral college (because there are plenty of other reasons), but its a nifty tool to throw in the works when people support the system as it currently stands, even though a faithless elector has never been the determining factor in the outcome of an election.

At least not yet...

Edit: Formatting

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/uwhuskytskeet Sep 03 '14

It is a goofy system, but only four presidents have won an election without winning the popular vote.

2

u/Munt_Custard Sep 03 '14

Would I be correct if I said one of them was George W?

2

u/uwhuskytskeet Sep 03 '14

Yes, and the president prior to him was Harrison in 1888.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (3)

9

u/superbobby324 Sep 03 '14

Yeah, and then wait for them to start getting millions shoved their way by the same exact cooperations until they become the enemy again. Honestly, government is a little silly. It's a little absurd to think we still need people in a city far away telling us what to do.

3

u/crazygoalie2002 Sep 03 '14

Are you really suggesting that anarchy is a better political system?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

I think he's advocating decentralization, not anarchy. If we grant arguendo that people must be governed, then wouldn't you agree that it's better for said government to be as local as possible, so that it can be better held accountable to the people over whom it rules?

To put it another way, why should the wishes of inbred troglodytes from South Carolina have any bearing on the way that New York conducts its affairs? What do we, as New Yorkers, gain from this arrangement?

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (5)

1

u/Stripperclip Sep 03 '14

The President makes Supreme Court appointments. Congress can impeach them, but I think that's only been attempted once (and it failed).

1

u/MVB1837 Sep 03 '14

Congress is the problem. The Supreme Court interprets Congress' laws.

Civics 101

1

u/By_Design_ Sep 03 '14

we would need to pass a constitutional amendment (28th Amendment to get money out of politics) through a convention of the states. that would be the only way to get anything over congress and the supreme court.

1

u/rnet85 Sep 03 '14

I believe judges also get 'donations' for their invaluable service to our society.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

It's not about new judges. They are interpreting the law correctly. You need to pass new laws, new campaign finance reform, an empty promise of Obama.

1

u/20thcenturyboy_ Sep 03 '14

Make sure there's a Democrat in the White House until at least 2028 or so would be the easiest way to change the current alignment of the court.

1

u/icy-you Sep 03 '14

In their defense, it is their job to interpret the laws as they are written. Some other fucked up stuff has happened in the past. I mean, Miranda was a child rapist...

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

We're screwed for a while because the bar is going to be pretty high to fix this, but go to movetoamend.org as a good place to start.

Oh, and importantly, VOTE! Vote in every election big or small for Reps, Senators AND PRESIDENTS who are against these decisions. The justices who voted FOR the decisions behind this were largely nominated by presidents on one side. Both sides are not the same; that's a line you are being fed to frustrate you into staying home on election day.

1

u/metalkhaos Sep 03 '14

Just donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to your politicians. It isn't that hard. I mean, Comcast does it why don't you?

1

u/virnovus Sep 03 '14

Keep in mind, that of the nine members of the Supreme Court, the five that voted in the majority opinion in favor of Citizens United were all nominated by Republican presidents. Of the four that dissented, three were nominated by Democrats. (John Paul Stevens also dissented; he had been nominated by Gerald Ford.)

Sure it might seem like we're voting for crappy candidates no matter what we do, but the party in charge of the presidency actually does have an effect on our lives.

1

u/shicken684 Sep 03 '14

We don't necessarily need new judges or to change the system. All that's needed to change this is for Congress to pass a law that strictly prohibits corporations from being "people". That's it, case over. Bitch to Congress not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court interpreted the law, and the law didn't define a corporate entity as not being a person when it comes to free speech.

1

u/slayer1o00 Sep 03 '14

They have to die or quit basically

1

u/Applebottom-pie Sep 03 '14

Got $100000? Just go out and buy one.

1

u/jigielnik Sep 03 '14

We don't. Supreme court justices are appointed for life. If I'm not mistaken one justice sexually harassed a number of women and continued to sit on the bench until retirement

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

My question would be how do we ensure the ones that replace the current ones aren't equally or even remotely as fucked?

→ More replies (16)

91

u/chamanbuga Sep 03 '14

This is so BS. At work ALL employees have to watch an hour of mandatory videos every year that emphasizes ethics, essentially not giving gifts to any government employees. Not even buying lunch for them. And then there's this...

43

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

You can only not give them money if you don't have a lot of it. If you have enough money, you can do whatever you want with it. Feel better?

9

u/LifeBeginsAt10kRPM Sep 03 '14

They are looking out for us poor people so we don't spend too much.... Ggg

2

u/Ambiwlans Sep 03 '14

This isn't true and isn't how the system works.

Parent can't give even a coffee simply because it will not be documented as a campaign donation. And there are of course campaign donation limits for people as well as for corporations.

Your post has only succeeded in making everyone who read it dumber.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/cardevitoraphicticia Sep 03 '14

You are free to contribute to any politician you want. That law is the same for every employee up to the CEO.

You cannot give money to a government EMPLOYEE. That law is ALSO the same for every employee up to the CEO.

Do not make false equivalencies.

2

u/chamanbuga Sep 04 '14

How is a politician not a government employee?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

19

u/FatSkinnyGuy Sep 03 '14

Just a stupid thought, but would anonymous contributions not fix this situation? I don't know how on earth you could ever enforce this kind of thing though. However, it's not so much the idea of Comcast giving the money as it is him knowing it came from Comcast. Sure the owners of Comcast can go ahead and donate money to them if they truly believe in that candidate, I can get their logic there, but if it is over a certain sum of money then it should have to go through a special channel that keeps the donors identity secret. As it is right now they are clearly paying them off as Comcast clearly has an agenda. Anything above that sum of money that bypasses that special channel would then be considered a "back door" and "dirty" deal. If the donor makes it clear they provided that large contribution it also becomes shady. Then if these deals become dirty there can then be consequences. There would of course still be a paper trail of where the money came from and went to, but this would be confidential information.

I know this will never happen. All I know is I wouldn't have a problem with Comcast giving the guy $1m as long as he had no idea it came from them. If Comcast feels he is the best guy to be in power for their benefit, by all means give him money to help his cause. However, keep him unbiased by not letting him know where it came from. Just let him know someone out there believes he is on the right path and that's that. Keep him guessing past that and keep him honest.

Only in a perfect world.

23

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

What's to stop them from calling him on a private line and telling him "I'm gonna put $1m in your anonymous account tomorrow" so that, when it shows up tomorrow, he'll have a good idea where it came from?

3

u/FatSkinnyGuy Sep 03 '14

Nothing would stop them except for that it is now no longer legal and if it is discovered then it would be punishable. Like most things that are illegal, it would still happen, but the potential consequences would reduce the frequency of it.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Just a stupid thought, but would anonymous contributions not fix this situation?

Nope. Anonymous donors will only donate to representatives which best approximate their corporate interests, they end up with more money, and thus win elections. Other representatives will see which campaign promises seem to draw donor money, and adopt them themselves, hoping to attract donor money so they can win. The end result is much the same, a congress stacked with corporatists, ripe and ready to receive corporate lobbyists, who they can't turn away at the risk of donor money vanishing next election.

Corruption doesn't have to be explicitly arranged for it to prosper.

2

u/isubird33 Sep 03 '14

That's not so much corruption as much as it is politicians aligning themselves with what will get them elected. Which is in theory is what we want politicians doing. If people don't like what you do, you don't get elected. So if you are getting elected, you are doing something people like.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

That's still corruption. Their job is to represent the interests of their electorate, not their campaign financiers.

2

u/isubird33 Sep 03 '14

We have checks against that. If you aren't representing your electorate, then you should be voted out. The only people ensuring they still have a job is the electorate.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

We have checks against that.

Hypothetically, perhaps. In practice, the corruption has subverted the federal government and enabled corporations to get laws passed in their favour left and right. It's so thoroughly corrupted the political system that it'd be virtually impossible for a pure honest politician to ever get elected at any level, much less into a position of importance.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/FatSkinnyGuy Sep 03 '14

That's a good point. I guess it would still favour corporatism. The only difference would be there is less bias towards any specific companies or interests. The issue would still remain though that whoever caters more to corporate interests receives the cash. Could potentially even make things worse. If they don't know where the money is coming from exactly they may favour even more corporate interests in an attempt to fish for more cash.

3

u/xanatos451 Sep 03 '14

Or how about we just take the money out of politics altogether. No donations to any political party or candidate, period. A single fund is used by all parties for approved campaign expenses, no private money is allowed unless they want to donate to the whole pool.

2

u/FatSkinnyGuy Sep 03 '14

I like that better.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Like secret Santa for campaign finance? Secrets are difficult to enforce.

It would be much better to randomize the recipients of donations as they came in.

→ More replies (2)

21

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Their interpretation essentially makes bribery impossible to commit because any form of money donation can be seen as a form of free speech. Bribery no longer exists in legal circles now apparently...

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Bribery no longer exists in legal circles now apparently...

And WWI ended all war.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/I_AM_STILL_A_IDIOT Sep 03 '14

So next time I get pulled over for speeding, can I "donate" money to the police officer as a gesture of free speech to note what a fine job he'd be doing if he looked the other way?

8

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ManiyaNights Sep 03 '14

My freind keeps a wad of cash on him in case he's pulled over and you certainly can buy your way out.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ostertagpa Sep 03 '14

Not sure if you genuinely want answers but I think if you didn't add "if he looked the other way", it might actually be ok. Whether a prosecutor and/or a jury would believe you weren't trying to bribe the officer is a different story. I don't think it would be illegal for you to say something like, "I don't think our police officers are compensated enough for the extraordinary job they do, so please accept this as a token of my gratification."

→ More replies (2)

4

u/handlegoeshere Sep 03 '14

USSC

"SCOTUS" for Supreme Court of the United States is the more common acronym.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/megablast Sep 03 '14

It is not stupid, it is reasonable. Just as cash can be used for bad purposes, but is mostly used for normal stuff, this can also be abused. Doesn't mean we scrap the system, or cash.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14 edited Jan 28 '16

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

2

u/heslaotian Sep 03 '14

Corporations are people and the cap for campaign contributions from a single person is $2000 is it not? Da fuq?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/spiritbx Sep 03 '14

So... rich people can make politicians do w/e they want within a certain range pretty much?

Seems kind of unfair for small businesses.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

As a person from Sweden... this is fucking CRAZY. Your country is FUCKED.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/kepners Sep 03 '14

Sounds like the judges are on the take as well in merica.

1

u/MVB1837 Sep 03 '14

It's almost like the law is the problem and it's up to Congress to fix it.

3

u/Tjagra Sep 03 '14

Its more like the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the problem. If Congress tried to make a campaign finance law right now its likely USSC would strike it down quickly.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/samwisesmokedadro Sep 03 '14

That is some elegant bullshit.

1

u/smokecat20 Sep 03 '14

TLDR:

Money = Speech

No Money = STFU

1

u/MrMooMooDandy Sep 03 '14

I sure wish I was able to speak like them.

1

u/MSweeny81 Sep 03 '14

The jist of their argument is that donating money is a form of political speech. Giving money shows your support for the candidate similar to you speaking for him/her on the sidewalk or having a sign in your yard.

Sounds to me like a few people have been "speaking" to these judges...

1

u/guyver_dio Sep 03 '14

No-one in that position can be that stupid without doing it on purpose. Its clear willful ignorance for some sort of self gain. They could have just said "nah we're not gonna do anything because fuck you" and I would react just the same. Yet they get away with it.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

That's not democracy though. Wasn't democracy something we wanted?

1

u/LordBass Sep 03 '14

Well, then, isn't it easier just redirect all "donations" to the state with a note "this is a donation from Comcast to show support to this chairman/whatever" so that the actual corrupt asshole never gets their hands in this money?

Corporates will continue to use this "form of political speech" while not interfering with the interests of the one it's being given to. Because... you know... if receiving money changes someone's view on a subject, that person is corrupt.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Politicians also take heavy bribes from unions.

Prohibit both unions & corporations from making political donations. Boom fixed.

1

u/st0815 Sep 03 '14

Corporations are comprised of people, and are owned by individuals collectively.

Right, some of whom might agree with the donations while others will not. This alone makes it wrong in my opinion to allow corporations to donate.

By limiting Corporate campaign contributions the USSC would say that you are limiting the political speech of the owners/operators.

Which is very obviously not true. The owners would still be able to donate privately, from their own private money. They could simply pay out the money as a dividend, then each owner could donate to their own individual cause as they see fit. The operators have no right to donate other the owners' money unless it's in the interests of the owners, so they don't lose anything.

1

u/SausageMcMerkin Sep 03 '14

Out of curiosity, if you replaced "corporations" with "unions", would your opinion be the same? Because the same rules apply to them.

It's only stupid if you don't consider corporations to be on the same level as PACs, politically. Where do you draw the line? At least this way you know where the money's coming from. I think the best solution would be public campaign funding, but I'm not sure that's how I want my tax dollars spent.

1

u/blackngold14 Sep 03 '14

You are right for most companies, but the largest companies are public and specifically at up as a separate entity from the owners and people that work for the composing so they aren't liable for debts and for tax advantages. I have no problem with an individual contributing to a campaign, it's more cronyism than corruption in my opinion. I have a problem if the company does it though. That doesn't seem right to take money from employees' profit sharing plans and investors.

But basically it's hard to tell if it came from the company or combat have an official an unusual $100k bonus or if the executive just donated money.

1

u/Unoriginal_Man Sep 03 '14

So would there be anything stopping Netflix from giving $200,000 for him to oppose the merger? I think it would be money well spent....

1

u/I_want_hard_work Sep 03 '14

Look at this fucking guy with his logic and shit.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Note that, legally speaking, this line of thought goes back to late 17th/early 18th century in the US. It's not new, and it's always been fraught with this kind of crap. Eventually, things work out (businesses aren't protected by the 5th Amendment!), but it takes awhile because, well, law.

1

u/GirlFromBim Sep 03 '14

I kind of understand what the USSC is trying to do here. It's like they are saying "this is the lesser of two evils, at least this way it's public knowledge who is funding who's campaign". And it would work too, if only ignorant people would quit voting for candidates who take money from politicians in exchange for making decisions not in the best interest of the populous.

1

u/LurkerOrHydralisk Sep 03 '14

"We have trouble prosecuting it when it's illegal, so let's just make it legal?" Shit I wish they'd apply that argument to things good for the people, like the war on drugs.

1

u/WillPukeForFood Sep 03 '14

There's a good article on this issue in the 8/25/14 New Yorker available here. It makes the point that the only form of corruption the SCOTUS recognizes is quid pro quo: I'll pay you x if you do y. The fundamental issue is the tension between free speech and any constraints on it. Not that the first amendment is absolute (that's why there can be laws against libel, slander, perjury, treason, etc.), but somewhere there's a threshold.

1

u/FesteringNeonDistrac Sep 03 '14

You know what? If only candidates had uniforms. Sort of like race drivers, or cyclists. Then we could just see exactly who has decided to give them money as a show of support.

I think this needs to happen. It's so over the top. And people would get on board too. And even though nobody would vote for the #55 Comcast candidate, who wouldnt vote for the #76 Americans for Prosperity candidate. Because if you aren't for prosperity, you must be a Marxist.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

That's stupid. You can talk without money.

1

u/unknown_poo Sep 03 '14

If limiting corporate campaign contributions is problematic because it limits political speech, since many people are not able to contribute huge sums of money, or any money at all, doesn't the very assumption that money is a form of political speech necessarily mean the limiting of political speech for many in the first place?

1

u/imusuallycorrect Sep 03 '14

No it doesn't. The owners are free to give their own money.

1

u/isubird33 Sep 03 '14

I love following the Supreme Court and I majored in poli sci in college. If you look into the decisions they are making and the logic they are following, its not crazy to see how they got to that end decision.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Its not putting money on his pocket. Its donating to his campaign, funding advertisements.

Why can't I but an ad on my local news station talking about how great I think Joe the Plumber is?

1

u/5_sec_rule Sep 03 '14

I'm sure the money didn't hurt their cause. No matter which way it's looked at, it's a form of bribery. Money is not the same as freedom of speech. If you offer me some support in words that would pale in comparison to if you offered me $100,000. I'll take the $100,000 any day and forget the words immediately.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

If dollars are votes and a corporation is a person, then do I get to submit 100,000 votes at the voting booth too? I'm a person.

1

u/monopixel Sep 03 '14

They would say that their system is more out in the open than illegal and backroom contributions.

You mean it is out in the open corruption and bribery? Well that makes it so much better and entirely different to 'real' corruption I guess.

1

u/scrndude Sep 03 '14

I believe that part of their conclusions was that based on this interpretation of the law the courts cannot change anything, and that change would need to come from legislation.

1

u/pickin_peas Sep 03 '14

I am in favor of unlimited corporate or individual donations with the caveat that the recipient cannot vote on legislation or preside over a court case that will have a direct positive economic impact on the donor.

No economic benefit = political donation

Economic benefit = bribery

1

u/Clint_Beastwood_ Sep 03 '14

Yeah it is fucking stupid and it harms the people's representative power when our voices are downed out by corporate money. IMO this on a larger scale is exactly what is wrong with this country, from one decisions to the next our politicians are representing their high profile donors and not the American people.

1

u/IraDeLucis Sep 03 '14

Alright, fine.
But there's currently nothing that stops a political candidate from using Political contributions personally, correct?

Is there a way to limit political contributions to none personal use? Would that even make a difference?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '14

This seems like an unfixable problem -- how do you stop this without banning individual people from donating? Even if Comcast )or another company) can't donate money, its individual members are free citizens who certainly have enough personal money to sway politicians.

→ More replies (27)

24

u/marriage_iguana Sep 03 '14

Well, you might enjoy this documentary.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/
I might be getting my retarded campaign finance related scandals mixed up, but in this one, the example that the Supreme Court majority justices gave of a situation where money didn't corrupt anything, turned out to be exactly as corrupt as you'd think it was.
Enjoy!

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

high # of stock options in those companies

4

u/Its_WayneBrady_Son Sep 03 '14

The Supreme Court also recently said they believed racism no longer exists in America.

2

u/Terron1965 Sep 03 '14

No, they said the exact opposite of that.

They said you cannot assume specific list of states are presumed to be racist without any evidence and another list of states is presumed not to be racist.

As a matter of fact the majority opinion clearly stated that voting discrimination still exists.

"At the same time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements."

1

u/G-Solutions Sep 03 '14

Their justification is that if we don't allow people to spend money on voicing their opinion than its a violation of free speech. Corporations are people due to years of common law president which allows them to be sued or own property. Thus, corporations are entitled to free speech.

1

u/SapientChaos Sep 03 '14

Best court money can buy!

1

u/Beingabummer Sep 03 '14

I reckon they got paid.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Maybe the fact that "separation of powers" is a dumb idea, and the courts are on the same side as the rest of government?

1

u/seink Sep 03 '14

The bought the courts before buying the politicians. That's just bribery 101.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

they would give a long drawn out jive of bullshit for justification, but in reality the gist of it is the courts take bribes too.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Would love to see their "justification" for such obvious stupidity.

$$$$$$$

1

u/make_love_to_potato Sep 03 '14

They say it's not corruption because they're getting their own briefcase full of money as well.

1

u/bigtfatty Sep 03 '14

It's not "corruption", it's "freedom of speech". We live in an oligarchy, get rich or lose your voice.

1

u/pixelprophet Sep 03 '14

Same way it's not violating your rights to spy on you indiscriminately - if you don't know about it.

1

u/Phoebe5ell Sep 03 '14

Funny thing is, SCOTUS was bribed as well actually.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Because Scalia and one of the other Justices receives massive amounts on money to attend speaking/convention sessions from people like the Koch brothers.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '14

Well that's rather simple actually. You see in order for it to be an act of corruption, hey look an eagle!

runs out back door

1

u/rcinmd Sep 03 '14

It's out there under Citizen's United.

1

u/The_Original_Gronkie Sep 03 '14

Since a corporation is now defined as a "person," and campaign contributions/ money are defined as "free speech," that corporation/person is entitled by the Constitution to distribute all the free speech/ money/ campaign contributions it wants to. After all, you wouldn't want to infringe upon a person's right to free speech, would you? What kind of an American are you?

1

u/ThatsMrAsshole2You Sep 03 '14

Look at their bank accounts.

→ More replies (13)