Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act

[sactowndog]

On 11/2/2023 at 10:05 AM, grandjean87 said:

Yeah, Hawley has some specifics to the matter as pointed out in reporting. Anti-corporate stuff is part of the right wing populist menu.  

Yeah I more curious how the Dems react.  They are no fans of Citizens United but nor are they fans of MAGA.   They let McCarthy (Corporate) twist and got MAGA Mike.  Are they better off?  Hard to say.  

[SalinasSpartan]

On 11/2/2023 at 9:57 AM, grandjean87 said:

What's the list of bills that became laws that then overturned Supreme Court rulings look like?   Pretty slim pickings there.  See the historical record. 

So, you care that bills are proposed to confront rulings of the Court, but not their stated or unstated motivations.  Cool.  

To the first part of your post, when the PHUCK did I ever say this tactic had a high probability of working? Politicians propose shit all the time that has no realistic chance of happening. 

Anyways I don’t “care” about anything with this bill because it’s never getting a floor vote. Just pointing out that challenging court rulings is A reason bills are introduced. I’ll repeat that. A reason. Not THE reason. Not the LIKELY reason. Not the reason I am saying THIS bill was introduced. But they are A reason a bill can be introduced, so pointing out that a bill conflicts with a SCOTUS ruling is pretty irrelevant, because that COULD be the point. Not IS the point. Not PROBABLY the point. Not LIKELY the point. COULD be the point.
 

If you think this bill could not have been introduced for that reason, ok. But don’t pretend that lawmakers don’t TRY this. Not SUCCEED. TRY.

[grandjean87]

On 11/2/2023 at 11:20 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

To the first part of your post, when the PHUCK did I ever say this tactic had a high probability of working? Politicians propose shit all the time that has no realistic chance of happening. 

Anyways I don’t “care” about anything with this bill because it’s never getting a floor vote. Just pointing out that challenging court rulings is A reason bills are introduced. I’ll repeat that. A reason. Not THE reason. Not the LIKELY reason. Not the reason I am saying THIS bill was introduced. But they are A reason a bill can be introduced, so pointing out that a bill conflicts with a SCOTUS ruling is pretty irrelevant, because that COULD be the point. Not IS the point. Not PROBABLY the point. Not LIKELY the point. COULD be the point.
 

If you think this bill could not have been introduced for that reason, ok. But don’t pretend that lawmakers don’t TRY this. Not SUCCEED. TRY.

Mundane.  Bills and laws at local and state levels conflict w/statues and court rulings all the time.  That's not the issue at hand. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 11/2/2023 at 10:27 AM, grandjean87 said:

Mundane.  Bills and laws at local and state levels conflict w/statues and court rulings all the time.  That's not the issue at hand. 

Uh…. yea….That’s what I just phuckin said. I was making a mundane point, not giving some controversial hot take. 

[SAMO]

Citizens united was a free speech case…and in that sense it was properly decided…lol

[SalinasSpartan]

On 11/3/2023 at 9:48 AM, SAMO said:

Citizens united was a free speech case…and in that sense it was properly decided…lol

And the ground work for  the decision (corporations are people, money is speech) was laid before that case was decided. I think there is a misconception that Citizens United established both of those concepts. 

[grandjean87]

On 11/3/2023 at 10:48 AM, SAMO said:

Citizens united was a free speech case…and in that sense it was properly decided…lol

I wonder if there were any precedents in Court rulings or general law for corporations or other collectively speech?

 

[East Coast Aztec]

Interesting how almost any major industry is pretty much split on where the money goes.  To insinuate one side really benefits more than the other is factually inaccurate.  Hell, even defense is pretty much split.  I am for corporations to not have the same autonomy as the standard American in terms of paying for campaigns.  Really, the real issue is why is it allowable to build these big fundraising machines to line everyone's pockets, induce corporate favoritism, and rarely-indictable gift giving?  How is it that the people who make the rules get to line their pockets, then bully agencies that can do something about it into silence, or simply buy them off around budget time, and we don't call this organized crime?  

Been saying it for a long time, the US government is a mafia, they just legitimized it before the others could.