By ‘de facto in-kind contributions’ I mean running ads, etc, in support of a campaign rather than contributing directly to the campaign. I mean to include what PACs do in the definition of campaign contributions, direct or otherwise.
I’m not supporting a campaign, I’ve never even spoken to them. However, I have taken out billboards saying that voters should oppose candidate X’s policy on Y. No contribution given or received.
The Constitution doesn’t let you curtail my political speech.
Well I am not campaigning against the Sheriff really. I am sure it doesn’t look good that I don’t think he’s doing his job enough to put up billboards about it. So do you consider that political or not? Am I now not allowed to criticize anyone who is elected. I can only take out billboard for people who are not in office or are not running?
I’d say (under my regime) it would be up to the FEC and / or a court to decide that,
It does, actually. We’ve been over that. How much it does seems to be up to the poltiical leanings of the judges looking at the particular example.
Pretty sure it’s overtly unconstitutional to have laws directed at specific people.
And what if I just run ads about ideas? Like “Abortion murders babies!” or “Immigrants are terrible and are going to murder your family!” Are those ok? Because they will clearly have an impact on elections. They will amplify or mute the messages of candidates.
Not really.
So far this year, fewer Republican members of Congress have faced serious primary challenges than at this point in the cycle in the previous 10 years. …Of the 125 primaries held so far this year that included incumbents, 82 were Republicans, and only 43 were Democrats. Of those, 15 Republicans faced serious challenges; nine faced stronger primary opponents in past elections; and three were running in districts altered in Pennsylvania’s mid-decade redistricting…Among the Democrats, six have faced serious primary challenges.
Convince the FEC it’s totally unrelated to electing that guy over there.
You see, it’s a very modest proposal. If your words might affect the government, then the government can silence you. Which is something that they would only do if necessary to protect the integrity of the government. Scott would personally make sure it’s not abused.
But personally, I like it when Congressional reps are worried about re-election.
I’d also like it if the reason they were worried about re-election wasn’t because they didn’t fellate the donor class sufficiently to have the unlimited slush funds and super pac’s needed to win.
Well, if the courts can determine whether your professed view that the cakes you bake are sincere expressions of your profound religious belief is genuine, I’m guessing they can figure out if you’re meaning to influence an election in favor of one candidate or another with your ad.
That article (which is from June 5th, so doesn’t include a lot of the intervening primary action) doesn’t disagree at all with my point; when 94% of incumbents are returned to office, if 15-20% face serious primary challenges, it follows that for many the most serious challenge comes from the primary. Pretty much all the Reps from the NYC area are decided in the primary, for example.
So your plan is just fill the courts up with an endless stream of cases?
Look. I am on the same field, so to speak. I’d like to see our representatives do something other than prostitute themselves to money from the minute they win.
I don’t think this is the right way to do it. All of a sudden dissidence becomes illegal and spending money to combat an unjust law, a corrupt politician or just trying to make a change.
Whether I consider it political or not is not the question. Is it an attempt to elect someone, an expenditure made for that purpose? If not, then put up all the billboards you want.
Do you know how easy it would be to get around the requirement? I am not trying to get someone to replace Trump, I’m just pointing out what a shitty job he is doing. Nothing political or campaigning about that… right?
It was the law of the land until quite recently that the right of corporations to contribute to campaigns or spend money on their behalf was severely curtailed. And it was not the case that the courts were filled with an endless stream of cases about it.
More broadly, 300 million+ people live under constraints on what they can contribute directly to campaigns, and the campaigns themselves live under constraints of what they can accept and how they have report, yet there is not an endless stream of cases to sort out. Most people follow the rules.
I don’t know why you’re talking about corporations. It’s just me and a 100 of my friends trying to get justice for my daughter against a sheriff who isn’t doing their job!
Sure. That’s why I said convince the FEC of that. I don’t doubt that you can, but it will be a damned sight harder for a SuperPAC to get away with massive spending which is clearly advantageous to one side.
I don’t know why that’s the entirety of your response. Didn’t I mention you and all your friends? Aren’t you part of the 300+ million who today have to carefully follow campaign contribution laws?
How would that be done?
If something is related to a campaign issue, I’m not allowed to talk about it publicly?