This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sure, so that kicks the question to, "What counts as a campaign contribution?"
Remember back a whole five years? We seriously had to discuss whether talking to a foreigner was a campaign contribution. At least this time, money exchanged hands. Why does it count as "a campaign contribution"?
Whelp, mostly because there is sufficient vagueness, and when it comes to Trump, any vague stick will do.Maybe... someone gave money to the Trump campaign? That's what a "campaign contribution" is, right? ...no, that's not what happened. Someone exchanged money in a way that helped the Trump campaign? Sure, that happens all the time; no crime. Well, maybe that helping of the Trump campaign provided the people involved some influence or access! Wait no, we just saw the Supreme Court call bullshit on that one.So, how, exactly, does this count as a "campaign contribution", and how can that be disassociated from there being some appearance of quid pro quo? If we're going to start roping in all sorts of stuff like just talking to foreigners, we're talking about things that look very different than the traditional "campaign contributions", you know, the "giving money to a campaign" that the Supreme Court okay'd on the grounds that Congress [was] target[ing] only a specific type of corruption—"quid pro quo" corruption. Like, real talk, if people brought a case that getting opposition research by talking to a foreigner was a campaign contribution (and managed to win in the lower courts), do you think the Court would have accepted that rationale and said that it merely follows directly from the parts of CU we've been quoting?
I am not an expert, but I know that campaign contribution is very broadly defined. As it should be, if the problem is the risk of quid pro quo. Certainly, forbearance of a legal claim against a candidate can be the quid.
Ok, I think you're actually out on a limb on this one. Suppose a person is literally just selling goods. In exchange for money, they give up their legal right to that good. This is a quid pro quo, but not one that is of any real concern. Neither the quid nor the quo is "in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties". So, where does something like that come in to play? Is it in the actual thing that Trump did? Or is it somehow justifying a vague and possibly overbroad definition of "campaign contribution"? If the latter, what, exactly, does that justification look like?
And suppose I sell a campaign ten million bumper stickers, but only charge a dollar. Can you see where that might raise a suspicion of a quid pro quo? Or if, out of the goodness of my heart, sign a waiver of my right to sue the candidate for breach of contract. Can you see where that too might raise a suspicion of a quid pro quo? As I understand the law, that is why campaign contributions are defined broadly, and why all such transactions must be reported, regardless of whether a specific transaction is likely to be an actual quid pro quo.
Ok, so Trump pays money for X. X could be a waiver of a right to sue for breach of contract; could be bumper stickers; could be diet coke. This is a "campaign contribution", because diet coke is a "thing of value" provided to the campaign (in exchange for money)? And perhaps, that diet coke vendor is charging just a bit too low.
Do you think that Trump buying diet coke counts as a "campaign contribution"? Do you think it should? Do you think that if he buys a diet coke, he should be required to report it? ....do you think it should be a felony if he doesn't? Do you think we've mayyyyyyybe stretched federal election law a biiiit too much, and a biiiit outside the lane of what the Supreme Court said was a legitimate interest?
It obviously depends on how little the vendor charges, but regardless, the Court is certainly aware that the defintion of contribution is broad, and since the whole point is to combat the perception of corruption, of course it is broad. Leaving loopholes would increase the risk that there would be perceptions of corruption, would it not?
I don't think they conceived of it being this broad, at all. Let's try another route. Maybe you think Trump underpaid for X, and that's why it's an illegal campaign contribution. Is your position that if Trump had paid more for the item in question, everyone would agree, "Oh, well, nothing to see here, everything's normal," and we wouldn't have an indictment in the Southern District of New York?
(This is getting to be almost as good as all those people five years ago who said it was illegal to talk to a foreigner about dirt... unless you paid for it.)
You seem to be assuming that I think that the indictment is not politically motivated. Of course it is politically motivated; its primary purpose is, and primary effect will be, to enhance the future political prospects of Alvin Bragg. Moreover, IMHO opinion it creates a terrible precedent that pushes the US toward banana republic territory. But none of that is relevant to the legal validity of the indictment.
Ok, on the question of legal validity, do you think that, supposing such a charge is legally valid given that Trump paid $Y for Item X, do you think that it would be legally invalid if he had paid a larger sum?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link