How would a rape/incest exception be implemented?

[OzzyKP]

Yeah, it's not like millionaires run any corporations. And it's not like wealthy individuals finance any political organizations. And if you don't think unlimited indirect contributions are harmful, I'm guessing you don't even want to bother with limiting direct contributions.

You brought up Citizens United and in your criticism of it demonstrated that you didn't really know what the decision was about. I tried to clarify it for you, but instead you seem to be wearing your confusion as a badge of honor.

[giblets]

You brought up Citizens United and in your criticism of it demonstrated that you didn't really know what the decision was about. I tried to clarify it for you, but instead you seem to be wearing your confusion as a badge of honor.

Yes, it's impossible to understand why anyone would think corporate donations might essentially be millionaires giving politicians money to influence them.

[OzzyKP]

Yes, it's impossible to understand why anyone would think corporate donations might essentially be millionaires giving politicians money to influence them.

Yes.

Because a millionaire, as an individual, could spend as much of their money as they wanted, on their own, to run attack ads against a candidate before Citizens United. They just couldn't do it if they were part of an incorporated entity with others, which is what Citizens United fixed.

[Kuciwalker]

How are you supposed to bribe someone without using wealth? That doesn't even make sense.

Well apparently it's possible to bribe someone simply by working at a job and using that money to pay someone else to make really effective speech. So maybe the person hired could make the really effective speech on their own.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes.

Because a millionaire, as an individual, could spend as much of their money as they wanted, on their own, to run attack ads against a candidate before Citizens United. They just couldn't do it if they were part of an incorporated entity with others, which is what Citizens United fixed.

The only way to reverse this is to strictly regulate all forms of political speech, which is completely antithetical to the First Amendment.

[giblets]

Yes.

Because a millionaire, as an individual, could spend as much of their money as they wanted, on their own, to run attack ads against a candidate before Citizens United. They just couldn't do it if they were part of an incorporated entity with others, which is what Citizens United fixed.

If I wrote "coalition of shadowy millionaires" would you stop nitpicking?

[OzzyKP]

The only way to reverse this is to strictly regulate all forms of political speech, which is completely antithetical to the First Amendment.

Yea, but the First Amendment doesn't apply to rich people, so it is irrelevant.

[giblets]

Well apparently it's possible to bribe someone simply by working at a job and using that money to pay someone else to make really effective speech. So maybe the person hired could make the really effective speech on their own.

It is possible to bribe someone by giving them money you got at a job, yes.

[Kuciwalker]

It is possible to bribe someone by giving them money you got at a job, yes.

No one is giving the candidate money.

[giblets]

No one is giving the candidate money.

Oh of course not. You just give it to an organization whose goal is to get the candidate elected. Which is what the candidate would have wanted the money for. Completely different, you see.

[OzzyKP]

If I wrote "coalition of shadowy millionaires" would you stop nitpicking?

Perhaps, but you still don't understand the impact of Citizens United. All it did was allow corporations and unions to donate directly. And with all the talk about out of control SuperPACs this year the truth is that less than one half of one percent of money given to SuperPACs came from corporations. Most of the money was from shadowy individual millionaires which is exactly what they were doing before Citizen's United. So despite all the doom and gloom people have been preaching the Citizen's United decision hasn't had all that big of an impact.

[giblets]

I'm honestly not trying to start yet another general should-abortion-be-illegal thread, though I'm not so silly as to think it won't turn into one.

Nope, this is now a bribing-candidates-must-be-legal-or-else-we-are-in-a-totalitarian-nightmare thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh of course not. You just give it to an organization whose goal is to get the candidate elected. Which is what the candidate would have wanted the money for. Completely different, you see.

Then why don't you address my example?

Situation 1: a rich guy hires someone to make really effective speech for a candidate. Apparently this is bribery by the rich guy.

Situation 2: the guy who was hired makes some really effective speech for a candidate on his own. Surely this is also bribery, no?

[Kuciwalker]

Nope, this is now a bribing-candidates-must-be-legal-or-else-we-are-in-a-totalitarian-nightmare thread.

Apparently so, because in order to stop "bribery" the government must be able to ban books because they are critical of political candidates.

[giblets]

Then why don't you address my example?

Situation 1: a rich guy hires someone to make really effective speech for a candidate. Apparently this is bribery by the rich guy.

Situation 2: the guy who was hired makes some really effective speech for a candidate on his own. Surely this is also bribery, no?

No, because the second one doesn't involve spending money.