Quote:Most Americans agree that our elections should be free of foreign influence. Apparently, some Democrats feel differently.

This week, the Ohio Senate passed a landmark bill by Sens. Theresa Gavarone and Rob McColley to ban foreign influence in critically important ballot measure campaigns. The issue couldn’t be simpler. As McColley put it, “Are we against foreign money in elections or not?”

Democrats in the Ohio Senate answered unanimously: they are not.

No issue should be more bipartisan than protecting elections from corrupting foreign influence. Polling shows the public overwhelmingly opposes foreign nationals playing a role in American politics.

So why is the left defending foreign influence in elections? Because they are benefiting from a half-billion dollars in foreign funds from billionaire activist Hansjorg Wyss.

Wyss is one of America’s biggest political donors, even though he is not a citizen. According to a biography written by his own sister, Wyss aims to “[re]interpret the American Constitution in the light of progressive politics.” He is putting his money where his mouth is. As the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust exposed, Wyss exploits a complex web of left-wing “dark money” groups to inject nearly $500 million into left-wing causes, all while helping to conceal the foreign source of the funding.

A single group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, has received $243 million. Part of the Arabella Advisors’ dark money network, Sixteen Thirty is a powerhouse of left-wing political spending.

NBC News reported that Sixteen Thirty spent nearly $200 million in 2022 alone “helping Democrats” win elections and “backing state ballot measures.”

Ballot issues are a major focus for the left. Initiatives are supposed to be a chance for citizens to directly check the power of government. But the left has focused on weaponizing them, reducing “citizen-initiated” ballot measures into a tool for left-wing activism — and a backdoor for foreign election influence.

Federal law, and the laws in most states, bar foreign contributions to candidates. But most states do not apply the same safeguards to ballot measure campaigns. That creates a huge loophole, one which foreign-funded groups like Sixteen Thirty are more than willing to exploit.

Since 2017, Sixteen Thirty has spent almost $80 million to influence 33 ballot measures in 18 states. Though it has spent on everything from abortion to Medicaid expansion, Sixteen Thirty has concentrated most of its largest contributions on voting measures. According to figures compiled by Ballotpedia, the group spent $3.5 million fighting voter ID in North Carolina, nearly $4 million to give Florida felons the right to vote, and over $6 million to bring error-prone automatic voter registration to Nevada.

In Michigan, Sixteen Thirty spent $6 million to take redistricting powers away from the Republican-controlled legislature, then followed up with over $11 million to enshrine a left-wing rewrite of Michigan’s voting laws in the state’s constitution — a one-two punch that helped turn the state blue.

Now, the foreign-funded left has its sights fixed on Ohio. Sixteen Thirty poured over $10 million into ballot measures last year, and is already one of the largest donors to a Michigan-style “independent” redistricting measure headed for the ballot this November.

Left-wing election lawyer Marc Elias, who has represented Wyss, is suing in the Ohio Supreme Court to advance another measure rewriting the Buckeye State’s voting laws. That initiative is so extreme that it even re-opens the door to non-citizen voting, something Ohioans just voted to ban.

Issues this important should be free of any trace of foreign influence. It’s already illegal for foreign nationals to donate to candidates. Ohio’s SB 215 simply applies that same protection to ballot measure campaigns. It is hard to imagine a more bipartisan issue.

But with this week’s vote in the Ohio Senate, Democrats are signaling they are perfectly willing to let the foreign influence flow, so long as it helps them. For a party that has railed against foreign election interference, the hypocrisy is astounding — but hardly surprising.

After all, the left is perfectly comfortable with “Zuck Bucks” schemes that pump private funding and left-wing politics into election offices.

The Biden administration is preparing to use tax dollars to finance a get-out-the-vote operation that is partisan in all but name. And liberal groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund are happy to spend a quarter-billion dollars in foreign money to influence American politics.

For the left, it’s winning uber alles.

Voters deserve elections they can trust, and that begins by protecting them from foreign influence. Ohio is showing us how to protect ballot measure campaigns from corrupting foreign influence.

Every state should follow suit.

Link

I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

Scotus ruled on foreign billionaires?

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

NOBODY said 'billionaires'. Such a disenfranchisement would clearly be unconstitutional. Poor people often have time to protest... rich people often have money to protest. Many have neither... some have both.

The issue (and you're a 'useful tool' for trying to obfuscate from it) is FOREIGN influence, regardless of their social status.

(03-12-2024 08:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

NOBODY said 'billionaires'. Such a disenfranchisement would clearly be unconstitutional. Poor people often have time to protest... rich people often have money to protest. Many have neither... some have both.

The issue (and you're a 'useful tool' for trying to obfuscate from it) is FOREIGN influence, regardless of their social status.

Except of course for the fact that Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

My proposed approach--Nobody but individuals can make political contributions. No PACs, no corporations, no unions, no bundlers, nothing but direct contributions by individual, flesh and blood, living human beings.

(03-12-2024 09:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My proposed approach--Nobody but individuals can make political contributions. No PACs, no corporations, no unions, no bundlers, nothing but direct contributions by individual, flesh and blood, living human beings.

Sounds like an improvement to me, but I thought Corporations were people and can't have their free speech rights limited?

(03-12-2024 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

Super-PACs, and all similar entities, should absolutely — 100% of the time, with no exceptions, ever — be required to disclose the exact identity/source for all of their funding.

(03-12-2024 09:15 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

Super-PACs, and all similar entities, should absolutely — 100% of the time, with no exceptions, ever — be required to disclose the exact identity/source for all of their funding.

Not going to hear an argument from me, but I'm not who you need to convince.

(03-12-2024 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

NOBODY said 'billionaires'. Such a disenfranchisement would clearly be unconstitutional. Poor people often have time to protest... rich people often have money to protest. Many have neither... some have both.

The issue (and you're a 'useful tool' for trying to obfuscate from it) is FOREIGN influence, regardless of their social status.

Except of course for the fact that Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

(03-12-2024 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Sounds like an improvement to me, but I thought Corporations were people and can't have their free speech rights limited?

(03-12-2024 09:34 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Not going to hear an argument from me, but I'm not who you need to convince.

Seriously Bonds... You offer nothing here.

First, you misrepresent the point of the OP...
Then you go on to demonstrate that you either didn't read the OP, or that you ignored it....

Included in the OP...
Federal law, and the laws in most states, bar foreign contributions to candidates. But most states do not apply the same safeguards to ballot measure campaigns. That creates a huge loophole, one which foreign-funded groups like Sixteen Thirty are more than willing to exploit.

Now, if you want to argue that Federal law ad the laws in most states don't have the teeth to get behind a corporate veil, that's fine... but such laws do exist. Those laws don't apply to ballot measures.

The rest of the article then goes on to talk about how these ballot initiatives have become a 'favorite' of the left in specific areas.

So you're literally ignoring the point of the post about foreign influence and suggesting that it is at least as important to stop wealthy US citizens and corporations from donating as it is foreigners.... which regardless of your position on corporations, is insane. I'd assume you wouldn't remotely equate foreign middle class donators with citizens in any other political donation action, but maybe I'm wrong about that.


The arguments against banning corporations is that you aren't also banning other similar groups like unions. If you want to ban one group of people acting under the direction of a board of directors, you should be willing to ban another. A ban on anything other than individuals (as proposed) would ban both. The whole 'corporations are individuals' is a misapplication of the decision to try and score political points with the ignorant.

The arguments about disclosure obviously (by your own admission that the press CAN get such information) speaks to the idea that such information IS present, even if not available to the general public. The Biden crime family has made clear how easy it is for such funds to be laundered and more could be done to stop it, but still... the information is there for those who NEED to know... even if it's not just freely available. I do somewhat understand why that might be the case in that we don't want people engaging in ridiculous 'guilt by association' BS, but by the same token we don't want people violating laws against donations. More could be done there in light of better communication in 2024 as opposed to when most of those laws were written.

(03-12-2024 12:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

NOBODY said 'billionaires'. Such a disenfranchisement would clearly be unconstitutional. Poor people often have time to protest... rich people often have money to protest. Many have neither... some have both.

The issue (and you're a 'useful tool' for trying to obfuscate from it) is FOREIGN influence, regardless of their social status.

Except of course for the fact that Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

(03-12-2024 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Sounds like an improvement to me, but I thought Corporations were people and can't have their free speech rights limited?

(03-12-2024 09:34 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Not going to hear an argument from me, but I'm not who you need to convince.

Seriously Bonds... You offer nothing here.

First, you misrepresent the point of the OP...
Then you go on to demonstrate that you either didn't read the OP, or that you ignored it....

Included in the OP...
Federal law, and the laws in most states, bar foreign contributions to candidates. But most states do not apply the same safeguards to ballot measure campaigns. That creates a huge loophole, one which foreign-funded groups like Sixteen Thirty are more than willing to exploit.

Now, if you want to argue that Federal law ad the laws in most states don't have the teeth to get behind a corporate veil, that's fine... but such laws do exist. Those laws don't apply to ballot measures.

The rest of the article then goes on to talk about how these ballot initiatives have become a 'favorite' of the left in specific areas.

So you're literally ignoring the point of the post about foreign influence and suggesting that it is at least as important to stop wealthy US citizens and corporations from donating as it is foreigners.... which regardless of your position on corporations, is insane. I'd assume you wouldn't remotely equate foreign middle class donators with citizens in any other political donation action, but maybe I'm wrong about that.


The arguments against banning corporations is that you aren't also banning other similar groups like unions. If you want to ban one group of people acting under the direction of a board of directors, you should be willing to ban another. A ban on anything other than individuals (as proposed) would ban both. The whole 'corporations are individuals' is a misapplication of the decision to try and score political points with the ignorant.

The arguments about disclosure obviously (by your own admission that the press CAN get such information) speaks to the idea that such information IS present, even if not available to the general public. The Biden crime family has made clear how easy it is for such funds to be laundered and more could be done to stop it, but still... the information is there for those who NEED to know... even if it's not just freely available. I do somewhat understand why that might be the case in that we don't want people engaging in ridiculous 'guilt by association' BS, but by the same token we don't want people violating laws against donations. More could be done there in light of better communication in 2024 as opposed to when most of those laws were written.

Pfft. Dude offers a HELLUVA lot more than 99% of the posters here who you seemingly don't even bat an eye at.

OP included.

And the Republican Party was fully on board with allowing all sorts of crazy election funding rules changes. Did it cost them any votes? Not likely.

Just like the party decides what the issues are and what to think about them, it gets the votes because the alternatives are not there. Just the way democracy is supposed to work:/

Both parties’ voters toe the line, vote the way they are supposed to, and approve virtually anything they are told to. You can choose this way to get screwed, or the other way to get screwed. It’s all up to the voters.

And the voters from both groups brag about their views, “yeah, we totally got screwed and we hate it, but if the other guys had won, we’d be screwed even more.”

And the powers that be laugh at what a bunch of idiots they rule over, and how easy it is to not only dupe everybody, every time, and for most of them walk away feeling like they had a say.

(03-12-2024 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Pfft. Dude offers a HELLUVA lot more than 99% of the posters here who you seemingly don't even bat an eye at.

OP included.

Seemingly is the operative word there.

The argument that if I admonish one, that I must somehow admonish EVERY troll on here (as a poster) is just stupid Tom. I don't read 80% of the threads nor probably 95% of the posts on here.

Either I'm right or I'm not... Try arguing that.

(03-12-2024 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 12:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

NOBODY said 'billionaires'. Such a disenfranchisement would clearly be unconstitutional. Poor people often have time to protest... rich people often have money to protest. Many have neither... some have both.

The issue (and you're a 'useful tool' for trying to obfuscate from it) is FOREIGN influence, regardless of their social status.

Except of course for the fact that Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

(03-12-2024 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Sounds like an improvement to me, but I thought Corporations were people and can't have their free speech rights limited?

(03-12-2024 09:34 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Not going to hear an argument from me, but I'm not who you need to convince.

Seriously Bonds... You offer nothing here.

First, you misrepresent the point of the OP...
Then you go on to demonstrate that you either didn't read the OP, or that you ignored it....

Included in the OP...
Federal law, and the laws in most states, bar foreign contributions to candidates. But most states do not apply the same safeguards to ballot measure campaigns. That creates a huge loophole, one which foreign-funded groups like Sixteen Thirty are more than willing to exploit.

Now, if you want to argue that Federal law ad the laws in most states don't have the teeth to get behind a corporate veil, that's fine... but such laws do exist. Those laws don't apply to ballot measures.

The rest of the article then goes on to talk about how these ballot initiatives have become a 'favorite' of the left in specific areas.

So you're literally ignoring the point of the post about foreign influence and suggesting that it is at least as important to stop wealthy US citizens and corporations from donating as it is foreigners.... which regardless of your position on corporations, is insane. I'd assume you wouldn't remotely equate foreign middle class donators with citizens in any other political donation action, but maybe I'm wrong about that.


The arguments against banning corporations is that you aren't also banning other similar groups like unions. If you want to ban one group of people acting under the direction of a board of directors, you should be willing to ban another. A ban on anything other than individuals (as proposed) would ban both. The whole 'corporations are individuals' is a misapplication of the decision to try and score political points with the ignorant.

The arguments about disclosure obviously (by your own admission that the press CAN get such information) speaks to the idea that such information IS present, even if not available to the general public. The Biden crime family has made clear how easy it is for such funds to be laundered and more could be done to stop it, but still... the information is there for those who NEED to know... even if it's not just freely available. I do somewhat understand why that might be the case in that we don't want people engaging in ridiculous 'guilt by association' BS, but by the same token we don't want people violating laws against donations. More could be done there in light of better communication in 2024 as opposed to when most of those laws were written.

Pfft. Dude offers a HELLUVA lot more than 99% of the posters here who you seemingly don't even bat an eye at.

OP included.

how cute, ole Tom's trying to make a new friend after Tanq has left the scene after getting completely owned.

(03-12-2024 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I thought Corporations were people and can't have their free speech rights limited?

The lie that Citizens United held that corporations are people needs to be relegated to the trash bin. The concept of a corporation being a legal person was first held in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), an 8-1 USSCt decision with the opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, who by the way also wrote the opinion in Marbury v. Madison. That holding has been affirmed and amplified by numerous cases over the last 200 years. The only right that corporations have been held not to possess is the 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination.

All Citizens United actually said was that if we were going to allow unions and PACs and other organizations have a voice in politics, then fairness and equal protection demand the same for corporations. My opinion is that we either allow all of them or none of them.

(03-12-2024 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  All Citizens United actually said was that if we were going to allow unions and PACs and other organizations have a voice in politics, then fairness and equal protection demand the same for corporations. My opinion is that we either allow all of them or none of them.

This.

And while I can understand the “none of them” side of that argument, I’m inclined to the “all of them” point of view, so long as we can readily identify the individual, flesh-and-blood human beings who are supplying the money. But the farther we go along this path, the more that identification seems to be impossible.

(03-12-2024 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

NOBODY said 'billionaires'. Such a disenfranchisement would clearly be unconstitutional. Poor people often have time to protest... rich people often have money to protest. Many have neither... some have both.

The issue (and you're a 'useful tool' for trying to obfuscate from it) is FOREIGN influence, regardless of their social status.

Except of course for the fact that Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

Not surprising you would have that view. Especially since I have seen reports from exactly no where about all the millions flowing into conservative groups from foreign billionaires.

(03-12-2024 12:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:56 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I agree Billionaires using their money to secretly influence elections is bad. Maybe we should do something to stop it, oh wait never mind, SCOTUS said we can't.

NOBODY said 'billionaires'. Such a disenfranchisement would clearly be unconstitutional. Poor people often have time to protest... rich people often have money to protest. Many have neither... some have both.

The issue (and you're a 'useful tool' for trying to obfuscate from it) is FOREIGN influence, regardless of their social status.

Except of course for the fact that Super PACs aren't required to disclose exactly who is donating to them, you can route it through shell corps and dark money groups, so we don't have a damn clue if they have FOREIGN INFLUENCE or not. Most of the time when investigative reporters are able to dig in and get access to donor lists they have non-US citizens donating to them. How would you propose eliminating Foreign donors without having complete transparency for all donors?

(03-12-2024 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Sounds like an improvement to me, but I thought Corporations were people and can't have their free speech rights limited?

(03-12-2024 09:34 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Not going to hear an argument from me, but I'm not who you need to convince.

Seriously Bonds... You offer nothing here.

First, you misrepresent the point of the OP...
Then you go on to demonstrate that you either didn't read the OP, or that you ignored it....

Included in the OP...
Federal law, and the laws in most states, bar foreign contributions to candidates. But most states do not apply the same safeguards to ballot measure campaigns. That creates a huge loophole, one which foreign-funded groups like Sixteen Thirty are more than willing to exploit.

Now, if you want to argue that Federal law ad the laws in most states don't have the teeth to get behind a corporate veil, that's fine... but such laws do exist. Those laws don't apply to ballot measures.

The rest of the article then goes on to talk about how these ballot initiatives have become a 'favorite' of the left in specific areas.

So you're literally ignoring the point of the post about foreign influence and suggesting that it is at least as important to stop wealthy US citizens and corporations from donating as it is foreigners.... which regardless of your position on corporations, is insane. I'd assume you wouldn't remotely equate foreign middle class donators with citizens in any other political donation action, but maybe I'm wrong about that.


The arguments against banning corporations is that you aren't also banning other similar groups like unions. If you want to ban one group of people acting under the direction of a board of directors, you should be willing to ban another. A ban on anything other than individuals (as proposed) would ban both. The whole 'corporations are individuals' is a misapplication of the decision to try and score political points with the ignorant.

The arguments about disclosure obviously (by your own admission that the press CAN get such information) speaks to the idea that such information IS present, even if not available to the general public. The Biden crime family has made clear how easy it is for such funds to be laundered and more could be done to stop it, but still... the information is there for those who NEED to know... even if it's not just freely available. I do somewhat understand why that might be the case in that we don't want people engaging in ridiculous 'guilt by association' BS, but by the same token we don't want people violating laws against donations. More could be done there in light of better communication in 2024 as opposed to when most of those laws were written.

No, what I'm saying is that the laws/court cases that make it extremely easy for domestic large money donors to be able to hide their identities and the amounts of money they donate to specific Super PACs (which aren't technically allowed to support individual candidates but skirt that law all the time and work towards ballot measures and other non-candidate specific issues) would be able to be exploited by foreign donors just the same. Sure, if you ask me which do I think is worse foreign billionaires trying to influence our elections or domestic ones I'd say foreign ones, but I'm failing to see how you could carve out something in the Citizens United framework that would allow you to identify, publicize, and ban foreign investment of that type without doing the same to domestic investment like that. If you have an idea of how you'd divide that baby I'm interested to hear it.

(03-13-2024 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  No, what I'm saying is that the laws/court cases that make it extremely easy for domestic large money donors to be able to hide their identities and the amounts of money they donate to specific Super PACs (which aren't technically allowed to support individual candidates but skirt that law all the time and work towards ballot measures and other non-candidate specific issues) would be able to be exploited by foreign donors just the same.

But it's not. You said yourself that investigative reporters have been able to find these things out... so it's NOT hidden from prosecution. It's just hidden from the general public. I find it hilarious how often the right flip flops on 'rights to privacy'.

Quote:Sure, if you ask me which do I think is worse foreign billionaires trying to influence our elections or domestic ones I'd say foreign ones, but I'm failing to see how you could carve out something in the Citizens United framework that would allow you to identify, publicize, and ban foreign investment of that type without doing the same to domestic investment like that. If you have an idea of how you'd divide that baby I'm interested to hear it.

No division of a baby. As I said from the start and others have repeated.. If you (as a citizen) want to band together and delegate your protests or support to a 3rd party... whether it be a union or a pac or a corporation, go for it.

If you want to ban all such aggregations, most of us are fine with that as well and have said so.

The only thing we're NOT in favor of is allowing SOME Americans to band together, but not others. The fact that you've been told (and repeated) the lie about Citizens United demonstrates that 'your side' only wants to ban SOME people from banding together.

I've long advocated for fixed amounts funded by taxes for all elected offices. Just making up a number... 5k for dog catcher... 500mm for President... with NO outside dollars... not even personal dollars....

1) it would remove any 'buying' of candidates, at least during this process
2) it would require them to live within a budget... a good first start.
3) it would give more power to 3rd parties.... so there would have to be a threshold of sorts... as in you get some number of delegates from state primaries...

this idea would require a lot more thought than I'm willing to give it right not when determining the amounts and how you'd reach those milestones to get them... but that is what I'd do.

(03-13-2024 10:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  No, what I'm saying is that the laws/court cases that make it extremely easy for domestic large money donors to be able to hide their identities and the amounts of money they donate to specific Super PACs (which aren't technically allowed to support individual candidates but skirt that law all the time and work towards ballot measures and other non-candidate specific issues) would be able to be exploited by foreign donors just the same.

But it's not. You said yourself that investigative reporters have been able to find these things out... so it's NOT hidden from prosecution. It's just hidden from the general public. I find it hilarious how often the right flip flops on 'rights to privacy'.

Quote:Sure, if you ask me which do I think is worse foreign billionaires trying to influence our elections or domestic ones I'd say foreign ones, but I'm failing to see how you could carve out something in the Citizens United framework that would allow you to identify, publicize, and ban foreign investment of that type without doing the same to domestic investment like that. If you have an idea of how you'd divide that baby I'm interested to hear it.

No division of a baby. As I said from the start and others have repeated.. If you (as a citizen) want to band together and delegate your protests or support to a 3rd party... whether it be a union or a pac or a corporation, go for it.

If you want to ban all such aggregations, most of us are fine with that as well and have said so.

The only thing we're NOT in favor of is allowing SOME Americans to band together, but not others. The fact that you've been told (and repeated) the lie about Citizens United demonstrates that 'your side' only wants to ban SOME people from banding together.

I've long advocated for fixed amounts funded by taxes for all elected offices. Just making up a number... 5k for dog catcher... 500mm for President... with NO outside dollars... not even personal dollars....

1) it would remove any 'buying' of candidates, at least during this process
2) it would require them to live within a budget... a good first start.
3) it would give more power to 3rd parties.... so there would have to be a threshold of sorts... as in you get some number of delegates from state primaries...

this idea would require a lot more thought than I'm willing to give it right not when determining the amounts and how you'd reach those milestones to get them... but that is what I'd do.

You are very much assuming that I want the same things "my side" (which I guess you mean the Dems but screw them) wants. However, you named what I also ideally want, public funding of all elections and getting all outside money out of the election process.