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 -
Because you are not a candidate. You're the Solicitor General of the United States, having been given time by the Supreme Court in oral arguments to present the federal view of election law.
If you say something like, 'Yeah, we can actually ban books from being published via this little campaign finance regulation,' things are not going to go well for you.
I don't understand what this has to do with what we are talking about.
If you try to say that something is illegal based on a wildly overbroad theory of a vague statute, the Court is going to say that it is not illegal. That's what happened in CU. It's almost certainly what would happen if someone tried to actually bring a case that just talking to a foreigner about dirt was illegal. And it's probably going to happen to your position if it doesn't have a bit more justification than, "If a candidate buys a diet coke, he has to report it; if he doesn't, that's a felony, because the price could have been too low and formed a quid pro quo."
"CU" = Citizens United? That is not at all what Citizen's United said.
I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The definition of "contribution" to providing goods or service at less than the usual and normal charge is quite well-established, across many, many states. Moreover, just last December, Kris Kobach agreed to a settlement with the FEC for a violation of "52 U.S.C. ยง 30118 by accepting an inkind corporate contribution from WBTW in the form of a list rental below the usual and normal charge." Why would he do that, if there were a reasonable argument that the definition is invalid? The fact that you can make up a hypothetical about diet cokes does not render the law invalid.
Finally, I don't understand what any of this has to do with the Trump indictment. Again, AFAIK, no one is claiming that his campaign bought goods or services at less than the usual and normal charge therefor.
I think you might not have read my link. The solicitor general legit told the court that the gov't could ban books with their interpretation of campaign finance law, and this is considered a pretty big turning point in the case.
Why did you bring it up then? And why are you still trying to have it be the linchpin of your position? Like, your entire second paragraph is saying that everything is totally kosher specifically because of this. But if this is totally irrelevant, why are you even talking about it?
But the majority in Citizens United barely mentions either vagueness or overbreadth, and even then only in regard to rejecting suggestions that it could save the law through a limiting instruction. Ditto re the book hypothetical; it discusses it only in the section in which it concludes that "the Court cannot resolve this case on a narrower ground without chilling political speech,"
I didn't bring it up. You did. You said: "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." And then, "I mean, dis gon b gud to watch videos of the prosecutors trying to make the case to the jury, "So, here's how you make a valuation for a scandalous story involving a political candidate..." Like, how could you even possibly make that case?" To which I responded: "? But,they aren't claiming that she provided services for less than the usual going rate."
Look, as a matter of law, either 1) Cohen's initial payment was a "contribution" that had to be reported, or it wasn't; or 2) Daniels's forebearance was a "contribution," or it wasn't. If one of those was a contribution, and Trump misreported the money paid to Cohen as legal fees with the intent to evade reporting it as a contribution, he is guilty of a felony. If neither was a contribution, or if he did not have that intent, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. The language re providing goods on the cheap is meant to address attempts to evade the law by disguising de facto financial contributions. It has nothing to do with this case. The theory of the case re federal campaign law is entirely different.
Yeah, this is pretty important. Our interaction now is you standing at the Supreme Court, and they're giving you a chance to argue that there is some narrower grounds on which they can rule; that they can preserve something without allowing the gov't to ban books or talking to foreigners. If you fail to provide those grounds, they're going to conclude that it is simply not possible to rule more narrowly, and you're going to lose broadly.
You said:
But, the obvious thing here is that the quo is the money paid for such. So, similarly to how the Solicitor General didn't proffer, "Oh hey, we can totes ban books," instead it was Justice Alito who said, "Uh, doesn't your argument just imply that you can ban books?" You didn't start off saying it. I just pointed out that your position clearly implied it, and you've been trying to defend said position ever since.
And my response to essentially this way back up was:
So far, you've been defending the line that "buying a diet coke needs to be reported". If you want to repudiate that line, fine. If you want to intentionally not take a position on what counts as a campaign contribution, say it. If you want to intentionally not take a position on whether either (1) or (2) properly satisfies the definition, say it. Otherwise, actually say what you think the definition includes and why either (1) or (2) falls within that scope.
No, it isn't! The quo is political favors. "The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors." Federal Election Comm'n v. National Conservative Political Action Comm., 470 US 480, 497 (1985). We are back to the original point that ALL contributions must be reported, because that reduces the risk of the perception of corruption. Not just quid pro quo. So, IF forebearance is capable of being a quid, then it makes sense that is must be reported as a "contribution."
No, I really haven't. That is some weird hypothetical you made up. As I said, if a vendor contracts to provide cokes or food or whatever to the campaign at a price below normal, that is an in-kind contribution under the law, and rightfully so, because it an obvious way to disguise what is in reality a campaign contribution. No one cares if someone gives a candidate a single can of coke, and even if that did count as something that has to be reported, so what? How does that render the law invalid, under any existing jurisprudence? "'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'". New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lรณpez Torres, 552 US 196 (2008) [
So, what is the money that he paid for? Like, when Trump buys a diet coke, it's entirely possible that the diet coke is the quid and political favors is the quo. But then, what's the money for?
Exactly. IF a diet coke is capable of being a quid (which you surely have said that it is thusly capable), then it makes sense that it must be reported as a "contribution". Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense at all!
Because it's not just a stupid law. Again, let's go back to CU. The challenge is, "This law seems to allow you to ban books." "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws." Like, no, dude. That's not even in the right realm of response. This law obviously makes so little sense, at least given the way you're interpreting it, that it would pretty blatantly run up against major Constitutional concerns. If you can draw a line that avoids letting the gov't ban books/requiring every purchase of diet coke be reported, then maybe the Court will adopt your line. But simply digging in your heels and saying that you don't need no stinking lines and it doesn't matter if it's stupid, just let us do what we want to do and prosecute Orange Man on grounds that would never fly otherwise and would never be used in any other case... isn't going to get you anywhere.
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