# "Appearance of impropriety" doesn't matter to this backwards-ass conservative-packed Supreme Court **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 2, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191 "2014-04-02T19:14:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![deregulated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7bcc69/32.png) [@deregulated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deregulated)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/61 "2014-04-05T02:09:17Z")
So if I give a politician a million bucks for his campaign and he wins and I ask him to draft a law giving me an advantage over my competitors, if he does is that influence? Corruption? Bribery? or just free speech? ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2014, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/62 "2014-04-05T11:59:05Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Who else do you suppose may regulate it? You? Rachel Maddow? The aggregate opinion of the SDMB? Please tell us what body you believe should be seizing this power from Congress, and cite precedent and Constitutional grounds for such. State legislatures, unprecedented, Article V. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/63 "2014-04-05T15:17:07Z")
See, thing is, I don’t think Rachel Maddow would do it. “Here you go, Rachel, total power to crush your political opponents and drown them in a giant hot cup of Shut the Fuck Up…” She wouldn’t do it. Nancy Grace, Megyn Kelly? Send the Mauve Shirts to my door, haul me off to the Camp for the Chronically Groovy in a New York minute. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/64 "2014-04-05T15:49:06Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Because throughout history there has never been a correlation between injecting unlimited amounts of cash into elections and having even the barest appearance of impropriety, am I right Scalia and the other four fucks? > > Well, I can see that an institution that allows Clarence Thomas to refuse to recuse himself in cases where he has an obvious conflict of interest might not get how some things cause an appearance of impropriety. > > This is why we need to be diligent to never, never, EVER let a Republican near the White House again, at least until the scourge of this horrible, tone-deaf, backwards-ass, ultra-conservative court finally dies or retires and we can get some people who live in the real world on the court. > > Because in the real world, we need the Voting Rights Act more so now than ever - just look at what Republicans have been doing from the second they repealed it. Just look at the influence a handful of billionaires have had on political discourse. > > And in the real world, money is a corrupting influence. In the real world, a handful of wealthy donors can influence the outcome and more importantly the legislative goals of those who are elected. Hell, these folks write the laws now and have their devoted lapdogs in state congresses just pass them along. > > We the people… Who have the money. The rest of you can fuck right off. > > This is disgusting. Fuck the court and everyone complicit in turning America into a Plutocracy, one horrible ruling at a time. When one of this boards most thoughtful liberals, and a lawyer to boot, sides with the court, I would hope that the other liberals would pause and reconsider their position. And if they still think they are correct (nothing wrong with that), I would hope they would at least back off from the position that this is something only an “ultra conservative” could support. From the [GD/Elections thread on this subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=719898&page=2): > [@Richard Parker](#): > > I think you have basically three legal paths if you want to restrict campaign contributions: (1) You say money isn’t speech; (2) You say the threat of corruptions outweighs the speech interest; and/or (3) You say there’s some democracy or equality value that outweighs the speech interest. > > I don’t think any of those are viable without opening the door for this Court or a more conservative one to do things to free speech that the Left would hate. There is much more in that thread. If I have mistaken **RP’s** position, it’s certainly true that he sees this as a reasonable decision, and not some crazy, cook-up ultra-conservative piece of nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/65 "2014-04-05T16:03:49Z")
Well, of course it is, its a bunch of lawyers! A perfectly reasonable case can be made to prevent the ghastly hindrance of the speech rights of a despised minority, rich folks. Another perfectly reasonable case can be made that minor hindrances can be imposed for the good of the Republic, and to ensure that our citizens have equality in the electoral commons. I don’t want to send the Koch Brothers to The Wall, I simply don’t think its right for them to have a million times more political power than me because they have a million times more money, and that some acceptable accommodation can, and _should!_ be made. One navel, one vote, works for me. Then again, I’m a hippy, not a lawyer. Thank you, Jesus! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/66 "2014-04-07T15:33:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Then again, I’m a hippy, not a lawyer. Thank you, Jesus! And Jesus was a lawyer, not a hippy. I could cite Scripture on the poiint, but as Jesus’ counsel I’ll save that for court. [serves **elucidator** with defamation lawsuit o/b/o Yeshua bar Yusuf a/k/a Jesus Christ] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/67 "2014-04-07T16:26:12Z")
And the Sermon on the Mount was one of those “motivational” programs the boss sends the sales team to, out on Highway 9 at the Holiday Inn Banquet Room… No, Jesus wasn’t a hippy, but his agenda was a _lot_ closer to mine than to Calvin Coolidge. Not as deep as a well nor as wide as a church door, but tis enough, it will suffice… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/68 "2014-04-07T16:33:16Z")
Oh, and this crap about “corruption” of our system being only _quim pro quo_ as in bribery is the dumbest shit I’ve heard until the next time. Look, guys, sticking your head in the sand makes your ass vulnerable to, ah, “unintended consequences”! Just sayin’, is all… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/69 "2014-04-07T17:19:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > _quim pro quo_… makes your ass vulnerable to, ah, “unintended consequences”! Just sayin’, is all… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/70 "2014-04-07T17:35:00Z")
So, the thing is, free speech is for everybody. And the rich guy just has more of it than I do, but that’s ok because we both have free speech. Because that makes us equal, even if it makes me more equal than him. Its OK if he owns Lake Superior, long as I have a Dixie cup full of water, we are equal! Don’t know what these guys are smoking, but I’d like to try some! On second thought, no, no, I wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/71 "2014-04-07T22:52:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t know what these guys are smoking, but I’d like to try some! On second thought, no, no, I wouldn’t. You sure? Might make it easier to live with certain things. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/72 "2014-04-08T01:46:04Z")
How do they smoke Republican weed? In a bong made from the bones and blood of the working class! (bumpa-_ting_!) OK, that’s gonna need some work. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/73 "2014-04-08T02:07:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > How do they smoke Republican weed? Behind closed and guarded doors with coke-crusted C-notes for rolling papers! DUH! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/74 "2014-04-08T05:39:22Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Go ahead and let me know when there is any meaningful correlation between money and influence over politicians. Since common sense evidently doesn’t count… > [@](#): > > 2012 epitomized how current-day politics operate, which includes disturbing implications for the average voter. While money has always played a part in politics, the situation now is far worse than at any other point in history. With costly campaigns, Super PAC domination, and Citizens United repercussions, there now exists a growing inequality of political power that prioritizes the wealthy at the expense of the average voter. > > Candidates start seriously campaigning many months, even years, before their next election for a reason: victory and campaign funds are inextricably linked together. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2012 election cycle, the candidate running for a Senate seat who spent the most money won 79 percent of the time; for a House seat, the candidate that spent the most won 94 percent of the time. Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice and former Director of Speechwriting for President Bill Clinton, explained to the HPR, “Members of Congress spend a phenomenal amount of time fundraising.” The reason for constant campaigning—for example, newly elected Democrats spend around four hours per day fundraising—is this evident connection between campaign funds and election results. > > Winning an election does not just require money—it demands a treasure trove. In fact, the price of working in the Capitol building has never been higher. Maplight Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, reports that the members of the 113th Congress who won an election spent on average $1,689,580 to gain a House seat and $10,476,451 for one in the Senate. Such profligate spending dwarfed American median household income, which stood at $51,017 in 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau. > > If such a discrepancy exists between average household income and the cost of winning an election, where does all that money come from? Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law School professor, reveals the answer in his book, Lesterland. The tiny 0.26 percent of the entire population that donated over $200 in the 2012 congressional election cycle is not chiefly responsible; most of the money came from those who donated $2,500 or more, or 0.05 percent of citizens. Thus, 99.95 percent of all voters cannot truly influence the political system. It is not shocking then that a CNN poll indicated that 86 percent of Americans believe that “elected officials in Washington are mostly influenced by the pressure they receive on issues from major campaign contributors.” > > Maplight tracks how the amount of money spent on a bill influences the votes of legislators, and a correlation exists between contributions given to members by invested interest groups and the outcome of legislative votes. For example, S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, passed in the Senate by a vote of 62-38. Unsurprisingly, Maplight found that organizations and industries in support of the bill gave $138,548,850, or about 54 times as much as those that opposed. Whether you support the bill or not, nobody can deny the obvious impact of money. According to the New York Times, in July 2013, Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) introduced a bill to “remove a federal rule intended to prevent banks from issuing mortgages to customers who could not afford to repay the debt received,” which was essentially a $500 million tax break for big banks. Since coming into office six months earlier, Barr had received $150,000 in donations from political action committees of the financial industry. > > [Harvard Political Review](http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/the-degrading-force-of-money-in-politics/) This article came out in October, 2013 - before the ruling, incidentally. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/75 "2014-04-08T07:17:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > When one of this boards most thoughtful liberals, and a lawyer to boot, sides with the court, I would hope that the other liberals would pause and reconsider their position. And if they still think they are correct (nothing wrong with that), I would hope they would at least back off from the position that this is something only an “ultra conservative” could support. > > From the [GD/Elections thread on this subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=719898&page=2): > > … > > There is much more in that thread. If I have mistaken **RP’s** position, it’s certainly true that he sees this as a reasonable decision, and not some crazy, cook-up ultra-conservative piece of nonsense. Well, the thing is, it appears he hasn’t yet made an argument that convinces liberals on what negative consequences declaring that money isn’t speech would have. Then again, that’s the point of Great **Debates**. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/76 "2014-04-08T13:05:54Z")
> [@](#): > > One navel, one vote, works for me. So Mariette Hartley can conceivably get two votes? And Kyle XY (and my neighbor who lost a navel to abdominal surgery) are disqualified? Although I concede that checking for navels would be a lot easier than checking for voter ID. For most people. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/77 "2014-04-08T13:33:33Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Since common sense evidently doesn’t count… > > This article came out in October, 2013 - before the ruling, incidentally. There are two points made by your cite, both of which can be easily addressed: 1. Candidates spend too much time fundraising. Yes, this is an issue. I’d rather have them doing their jobs than fundraising. However, this is a problem made worse by the laws limiting donations, not better. If candidates could get higher dollar amounts from a smaller number of donors, they wouldn’t need to spend as much time doing rubber chicken dinners. 1. Candidates who win usually have more money. Of course this is true. But it doesn’t mean that the money caused them to win. Campaign contributors prefer to spend money on winners, so the money follows the leader in the polls. When the money comes from the candidate themselves, like with Meg Whitman in CA, it doesn’t guarantee victory. ---
**Author:** ![BDBoop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@BDBoop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDBoop)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/78 "2014-04-08T13:35:36Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Headline for the day: Free Speech Triumphs; Liberals Whine. What a unique spin, having nothing to do with reality. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/79 "2014-04-08T13:37:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, the thing is, free speech is for everybody. And the rich guy just has more of it than I do, but that’s ok because we both have free speech. Because that makes us equal, even if it makes me more equal than him. Its OK if he owns Lake Superior, long as I have a Dixie cup full of water, we are equal! Snark aside, of course this is true. Why wouldn’t it be? You also have freedom to interstate travel. Are you less free in this regard because you can’t buy a private jet and the rich can? You have freedom to own a gun. But you still need to buy it. Plus the rich can afford nicer guns than you can. You have the right to an attorney, but you get what you pay for. This is true of every single right that you have. What makes free speech so special that we must make a foolish (and doomed to failure) attempt at leveling the playing field? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/80 "2014-04-08T13:47:10Z")
Because buying a private jet does not affect the composition of our government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191.md?page=5)