# "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:** 7\ **Page:** 6
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/101 "2014-04-08T19:43:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > There’s sweatshop slavery in China, and please don’t insult us all and disgrace yourself by asking for a cite for **that.** And you think American bizcritters ain’t making money off it? Wow. This has to be one of the most blatant attempts at moving goalposts that I’ve ever seen. When you said slavery was alive and well in China you actually meant something like [Wage Slavery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)? That’s an entirely different thing. Then you jump to a strawman that I have some opinion about American businesses making money from Chinese labor? Have I posted anything on that subject to this thread? To any thread that you know of? It’s telling that you have to make things up out of whole cloth instead of just responding to what I post. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/102 "2014-04-08T19:46:12Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Wow. This has to be one of the most blatant attempts at moving goalposts that I’ve ever seen. > > When you said slavery was alive and well in China you actually meant something like [Wage Slavery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery)? That’s an entirely different thing. That’s no goalpost-shift, wage slavery was exactly the kind **Kobal2** was talking about in post #88. There is also more literal slavery in China, of course, convict labor. (We have that here too, come to think of it, but the American for-profit prison-industrial complex is another discussion.) > [@Debaser](#): > > Then you jump to a strawman that I have some opinion about American businesses making money from Chinese labor? Have I posted anything on that subject to this thread? To any thread that you know of? And that’s no strawman, it’s what implicates the **American** biz community in Chinese sweatshop-slavery and supports my thesis that they would do the same to workers here (like they used to) if they could only get away with it – which they conceivably might, if they can buy enough pols. ---
**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, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/103 "2014-04-08T19:54:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s no goalpost-shift, wage slavery was exactly the kind **Kobal2** was talking about in post #88. I disagree. He couldn’t have been more clear. He mentioned debt slavery first, then “actual slavery”. > [@](#): > > …and debt slavery. Or, y’know, actual slavery 'cause that, too, was the unregulated free market. His post couldn’t have been more silly or hyperbolic and over the top. It’s a good barometer, actually. Anyone who agrees with it is a far left loon. You could write the same thing from a hardcore Libertarian perspective, of course. Replace greed with government control. Swap radium girls with the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Switch private sector anti-union thugs with government KGB type thugs. > [@](#): > > And that’s no strawman, it’s what implicates the **American** biz community in Chinese sweatshop-slavery and supports my thesis that they would do the same to workers here (like they used to) if they could only get away with it – which they conceivably might, if they can buy enough pols. If you think there is any risk, any risk at all, of mainstream American businesses opening debt slavery style sweatshops as a result of a lack of campaign finance laws then, well… I’m sorry. You’re just a loon. There’s plenty of rational arguments to be made in favor of campaign finance laws. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. But going straight to radium girls and literal slavery as an argument against the recent SCOTUS case? It’s just nuts. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/104 "2014-04-08T20:01:09Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I disagree. He couldn’t have been more clear. He mentioned debt slavery first, then “actual slavery”. The radium women, **Debaser.** Remember the radium women? Wage slaves, not chattel slaves. And Americans. > [@Debaser](#): > > If you think there is any risk, any risk at all, of mainstream American businesses opening debt slavery style sweatshops as a result of a lack of campaign finance laws then, well… > > I’m sorry. You’re just a loon. If you think none of them **would** if they could get away with it, the loon would be you. The relevance of our present system of campaign finance is that it helps them get their way, and you’d be an even bigger loon to deny that. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/105 "2014-04-08T23:25:16Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Holy unnecessary escalation, **Kobol2**! > > I don’t want limits on campaign contributions, and you hit me with Slavery and Radium Girls. Where and why do you think the laws limiting campaign contributions sprang from in the first place, you simpering lummox ? Don’t you think that maybe, just possibly maybe, they could have been the result of backlash against crony capitalism, bought-and-sold politicians and the ravages caused by wealth on the voiceless ? Oh, to bring that golden era back. Enjoy sucking radium brushes and huffing mercury fumes for monkey money soon-ish (again), I guess. ---
**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 10, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/106 "2014-04-10T03:03:51Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Candidates spend too much time fundraising. Yes, this is an issue. Yes it is. > [@](#): > > However, this is a problem made worse by the laws limiting donations, not better. Not really. Once a well is dry, nobody drills there anymore. Limiting donations also means limiting the time spent on getting more and more and more and more of them. > [@](#): > > 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. Or if there was a limit to how much people could donate, they would simply set up a PayPal account for small donors (kinda like Obama did with great results in 2008 - of course before the really big influx of cash and Super PACs.) > [@](#): > > 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. I like this chicken and egg thing. You’re wrong, of course. Evidence of this is examples of where a sudden influx of money reverses polling trends. For example, let’s look at [Proposition 39](http://truth-out.org/news/item/12405-support-for-california-gmo-labeling-proposal-drops-following-industry-funded-ad-blitz) in California in 2012 which was a ballot initiative about labeling Genetically Modified Food: > [@](#): > > Support for California’s Proposition 37 ballot initiative that would require special labels for groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients has dropped dramatically since the industry-funded opponents of the proposal unleashed a statewide deluge of TV ads. > > About 50 percent of California voters oppose Proposition 37 and 39 percent support the measure, according to a Pepperdine University poll released on Tuesday. In mid-September, before the industry-funded ads hit the airwaves, 67 percent of voters polled by Pepperdine supported Proposition 37. That number fell to 48 percent by early October, and now Proposition 37 is behind in the polls for the first time. > > Recent Los Angeles Times/UNC Dornsife polls found similar results. Last week Proposition 37 held a slim lead at 44-42 percent with 14 percent undecided, down from 65-25 percent in mid-September. > > No on 37 raised $41 million from processed food and agrichemical companies, including $8 million from Monsanto and $5.4 million from Dupont, and used the massive war chest to launch the statewide TV ad campaign. At least two California newspapers have found No on 37 ads to be “half true” or “somewhat misleading,” while proponents call the anti-37 ad blitz “a massive campaign of deception and lies.” So according to your logic, those companies looked at poll numbers that were against them, ad that was an indicator that they had a winner there? You really think that the barrage of misleading, semi-truthful advertising didn’t have any impact on the poll numbers completely flipping to coincide when those ads started to run? Is that your theory? Assuming you admit that is pretty likely inaccurate (and really, you should) - why is it not likely with regard to other things on ballots, such as other initiatives or people? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191/107 "2014-04-10T22:06:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Which is sad, because the NRA’s chief motivation is pretty clearly spreading fear to justify its own existence, because there’s no real threat to private gun ownership in this country. It’s a prime example of how every movement becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket. The NRa certainly elevates the paranoia but they do not create it. The NRA was on its way towards becoming irrelevant (to the point where they were starting to adopt other right wing causes (what unions and taxes has to do with second amendment rights, I will never know) when the Dianne Feinsteins of the world tried to ban assault weapons federally and places like NY passed actually passed them locally. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Oh. So you can buy them all and only make the electoral process wholly irrelevant. Well, that’s no big then, pfft, what’s with the hysterics, OP ? $2600 for the primary and $2600 for the general. You can do that 535 timesfor a total of $2,782,000. One of the best bargains in politics. Of course for that much money you can buy yourself a congressional seat somewhere and might be able to get yourself a senate seat in one of the flyover states so its no trifle but you can also create your own PAC, put Carl Rove in charge of it and pump a billion dollars into it. This is a drop in the bucket. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You can? Good for you. > > Personally, I can’t do it. It costs $1,391,000 to give the maximum contribution to every Congressman. So I’m thinking this decision does nothing for me or the majority of Americans like me. Why does it have to? The 5th amendment will not do a goddam thing for most Americans either but we still think its important. > [@Debaser](#): > > Go ahead and let me know when there is any meaningful correlation between money and influence over politicians. There was recently an article about a San Francisco state Democrat that engaged in some pretty corrupt behaviour for a less than $70,000. Money has a corrupting influence, theres just not a lot we can do about it without signing over the govetrnment to people who can self finance their campaigns. > [@Icarus](#): > > “Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption” > > So this would be the same congress whose members spend 4 hours a day on the phone soliciting contributions (…that’s not “corruption” at all! Nope.)? The same congress whose members rely on these massive amounts of money to survive? They are the ones who may regulate? OK, got it. > [@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. Congress TRIED to regulate and the SCOTUS struck down the law. I thought that was what the OP was about. SCOTUS didn’t think that an aggregate limit protected against corruption or the appearance of corruption. > [@Bricker](#): > > In the Voter ID thread, a year to submit an application for ID or choose not to was taken by many commentators as impermissibly restricting voting rights. I think both are bad laws. I think both are unconstitutional but between the two I think voter suppression is far worse than limiting the choice of attachments and accessories I can legally have on my gun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/appearance-of-impropriety-doesnt-matter-to-this-backwards-ass-conservative-packed-supreme-court/685191.md?page=5)