Alright, I'm starting with our first politically related thread. SCOTUS appears to be taking up campaign finance again this fall when it returns.
Context:
Creating the prospect of a major case on campaign-finance regulations, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to revisit its 2001 ruling in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, in which the justices upheld federal limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, which restrict political parties from spending money on campaign advertising with input from political candidates.
The dispute now before the court was filed by the NRSC, the National Republican Congressional Committee, then-Sen. J.D. Vance, and former Rep. Steve Chabot, who represented Ohio in the House of Representatives for more than two decades. The challengers contended that the law violates the First Amendment, and they argued that the Colorado decision should no longer apply because the Supreme Court’s later cases have “tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign-finance regulations,” while political fundraising and spending have also changed.
In a decision by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit acknowledged that the challengers had identified “several ways in which tension has emerged between” the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the 2001 Colorado case and its later campaign-finance decisions. But, the court of appeals said, the Supreme Court has not overruled its 2001 decision, and the Circuit lacks the power to do so.
The DNC, in its motion, promised to “provide a vigorous and informed defense of the coordinated expenditure limits now under attack.”
My questions for those who are in the know:
- Why would the DNC want to defend against this? Wouldn't it be equally motivated to want the restrictions removed so that it has more power?
- Is there any practical difference between what is being proposed vs. what has happened with skirting the restrictions in place (e.g., PACs funding, etc.)? Will this lead to more spending or potentially less (on a net basis, with fewer intermediaries)?
I find political campaign advertising disgusting and would vote for candidates to promise to ban any spending on political campaigns. I'm fine with candidates doing a dog and pony show, but the commercials, mailers, door knockers, billboards, etc. are appalling.
Either way, I'm unclear what this ruling would do in pragmatic terms.
The three things that I’d most like to see happen in our gov’t that will never get any attention:
- Campaign finance reform
- Term limits
- PAC contributions outlawed
You assholes already bumped my first serious thread in years onto the second page?
The number of posts displayed on the topics page is way too few. It should be like 40 or something.
@jdb This will be your first warning. You call us a-holes again and it's a week ban. There is a way to be polite about things. This is not it. I have been more than responsive to issues. I am happy to increase the number of posts per page, but I do NOT respond well to being called names.
@jdb This will be your first warning. You call us a-holes again and it's a week ban. There is a way to be polite about things. This is not it. I have been more than responsive to issues. I am happy to increase the number of posts per page, but I do NOT respond well to being called names.
I think you are sorely mistaken for who that message was directed to. I was talking about the degenerates that have migrated over from the Water Cooler with me. There was nothing directed at you.
@jdb This will be your first warning. You call us a-holes again and it's a week ban. There is a way to be polite about things. This is not it. I have been more than responsive to issues. I am happy to increase the number of posts per page, but I do NOT respond well to being called names.
If "asshole" is going to set the mods off, this Cooler is going to be short lived.
@jdb This will be your first warning. You call us a-holes again and it's a week ban. There is a way to be polite about things. This is not it. I have been more than responsive to issues. I am happy to increase the number of posts per page, but I do NOT respond well to being called names.
If "asshole" is going to set the mods off, this Cooler is going to be short lived.
Miss me already, don't you?
@jdb This will be your first warning. You call us a-holes again and it's a week ban. There is a way to be polite about things. This is not it. I have been more than responsive to issues. I am happy to increase the number of posts per page, but I do NOT respond well to being called names.
His comment wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at all us other assholes.
@carramrod It's all about context. The way it read, I took at directed at the site and not this group. If you can be more specific you can call each other a-holes.
@carramrod It's all about context. The way it read, I took at directed at the site and not this group. If you can be more specific you can call each other a-holes.
Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
Needs a larger group of likes. I actually did laugh out loud at this.
Can anyone here play this game?
Latest Post: Anyone remember La Bamba restaurant Our newest member: Doug Beder Recent Posts Unread Posts
