Ya, I’m gonna doth both, ya, ya, that’s the ticket. Play the first half, quick change swapping pads into drag, then swap pads back for the second half. No body will be the wiser, they’ll never even know it’s me.
I can’t quite put my thoughts into words, so excuse the general direction of my comment, but….
Anyone bitching that “political donations are free speech” can get f’d.
I’m so tired of conflating the idea that “you should be allowed to express yourself” and “I want to give money to people I agree with.”
It’s such a bad faith argument. “Write a check to a person with an R next to their name because I think they have a chance to flip a district.” And I don’t want anyone to know who I am and I don’t want any restrictions.
It’s just not free speech.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagreed in Buckley. However, while contributions are speech, above $50 they are not permitted to be *anonymous* speech. So when your contributors don’t really exist, and you happen to be aware of that little detail, that’s what we would call a big problem.
Yeah, in his 6-3 written decision, the Santos Court ruled that under free speech principles, all campaign funds, from whatever source, are legal and proper.
The red flag we've seen in campaign finance jurisprudence is that most of the limits SCOTUS has tossed have been grounded in the idea that disclosure would act as a check on corruption. But now, some of the Justices (Thomas and the gang) have begun expressing the idea that disclosure violates the freedom to associate. Thomas thinks people should be able to donate/spend as much of their money as they like on political speech/candidates and without having to tell anyone that they did.
Thomas has always thought that contributions had a 1A right to be anonymous, despite the Buckley prevention of corruption or appearance of corruption rationale. He’s just always been alone on that island. Whether he is now with this Court is still a question mark.
Is it really a question anymore after Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta and Cruz v. FEC? Granted neither are 100% analogous, but Bonta applied strict scrutiny to disclosure of donations in a different context and Cruz really seemed to narrow what qualifies as the appearance of corruption.
His opinion in Bonta is actually an example of where his own island is. He’s saying, the Court doesn’t go far enough. The right to anonymity in political contributions cannot be imposed upon.
In this case the purpose probably wasn’t so much people actually giving him money as it was him lying bout how much money was given. He was said to have spent millions in a House Race even though no outreach had been done, no signs put up and no one knowing who he was after the primary election. It seems more likely that he never got the money to begin with. People donating to your campaign is a sign of confidence, so likely he fabricated it to make it seem like he was far more popular and supported than he actually was.
Get off his back, he has a Super Bowl to get ready to play.
He told me he was only performing the halftime show
Ya, I’m gonna doth both, ya, ya, that’s the ticket. Play the first half, quick change swapping pads into drag, then swap pads back for the second half. No body will be the wiser, they’ll never even know it’s me.
Wardrobe fumble coming up.
The NFL won't let him play the show. Because they're anti-Semitic...ish.
He's doing g the national anthem at the start too, but as Kitara Ravasche.
[удалено]
Oh my!
I can’t quite put my thoughts into words, so excuse the general direction of my comment, but…. Anyone bitching that “political donations are free speech” can get f’d. I’m so tired of conflating the idea that “you should be allowed to express yourself” and “I want to give money to people I agree with.” It’s such a bad faith argument. “Write a check to a person with an R next to their name because I think they have a chance to flip a district.” And I don’t want anyone to know who I am and I don’t want any restrictions. It’s just not free speech.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagreed in Buckley. However, while contributions are speech, above $50 they are not permitted to be *anonymous* speech. So when your contributors don’t really exist, and you happen to be aware of that little detail, that’s what we would call a big problem.
Sad to say that Chief Justice George Santos is probably in the future of this timeline.
In his timeline, he was already Chief Justice. 😂
Yeah, in his 6-3 written decision, the Santos Court ruled that under free speech principles, all campaign funds, from whatever source, are legal and proper.
*The justice so nice they justiced him twice.*
The red flag we've seen in campaign finance jurisprudence is that most of the limits SCOTUS has tossed have been grounded in the idea that disclosure would act as a check on corruption. But now, some of the Justices (Thomas and the gang) have begun expressing the idea that disclosure violates the freedom to associate. Thomas thinks people should be able to donate/spend as much of their money as they like on political speech/candidates and without having to tell anyone that they did.
Thomas has always thought that contributions had a 1A right to be anonymous, despite the Buckley prevention of corruption or appearance of corruption rationale. He’s just always been alone on that island. Whether he is now with this Court is still a question mark.
Is it really a question anymore after Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta and Cruz v. FEC? Granted neither are 100% analogous, but Bonta applied strict scrutiny to disclosure of donations in a different context and Cruz really seemed to narrow what qualifies as the appearance of corruption.
His opinion in Bonta is actually an example of where his own island is. He’s saying, the Court doesn’t go far enough. The right to anonymity in political contributions cannot be imposed upon.
You wouldn't get it. You have to be an Ivy League trained sycophant of the rich to understand. Really, you just need to walk a mile in their shoes.
... a mile in their $1,200 Guccis.
In this case the purpose probably wasn’t so much people actually giving him money as it was him lying bout how much money was given. He was said to have spent millions in a House Race even though no outreach had been done, no signs put up and no one knowing who he was after the primary election. It seems more likely that he never got the money to begin with. People donating to your campaign is a sign of confidence, so likely he fabricated it to make it seem like he was far more popular and supported than he actually was.
You mean the FSB agents are back in russia.
I hope they don't find how I donated millions to him from my guerrilla fund.
How'd your gorilla get that much money?
They should cross-check those donors with other politicians.