Could Montana get the court to reconsider Citizens United?

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

@Bricker

The use of money in the William Andrews Clark election was simple bribery… Actual corruption has never been shown there.

So bribary is not a form of corruption? Fascinating.

Here is my actual quote:

@Bricker

That has nothing to do with unlimited advertising. Actual corruption has never been shown there.

Why did you remove the sentence about unlimited advertising?

If you had left it in, of course, it would be clear I am saying actual corruption has never been found in election advertising. I specifically said that the bribery was corruption. That was in fact the essence of my post:

@Bricker

Big difference. The use of money in the William Andrews Clark election was simple bribery. It wasn’t plastering the town with “Vote for William Andrews Clark” posters and printing up wagon bumper stickers. At a time when US Senator were selected by the state legislature, he literally bribed members of the state legislature to elect him.

That has nothing to do with unlimited advertising. Actual corruption has never been shown there.

The money he spent was on bribes. The current prohibitions relate to advertising.

And how can you say I didn’t address the Copper Kings? Clark was a Copper King!

Even assuming you concede that bribary is corruption (and you will do that, right?) is your contention that the millions of dollars that they did spend on elections was a completely independent event from the bribary? A coincidence? Really? That is your contention?

If that’s the case then whyfore this:
Seems that folks in the state feel that the money was a pretty important issue, not just the bribary. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah… “there’s a perception that money buys access.”

And you failed to comment on the Copper Kings at all. I guess that wasn’t corruption either?

Yes. Bribery is different than advertising.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Yes. Bribery is different than advertising.

Councilman Bricker, I will make sure you get elected by blanketing the airwaves and outspending any other candidates 10 to one in advertising dollars, if you vote my way.

Have I offered to bribe you?

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

I thought you were addrdessing the West Virginia citation… Did you address that at all? No, it doesn’t look like it…

Why didn’t the fine people of Montana just make bribary illegal?

Oh wait, it already was illegal… So you are saying that Montana enacted a law that they didn’t need? It sure changed the landscape of elections in Montana - it’s kind of why they are fighting to keep it.

[BlinkingDuck]

@Tarwater

I was born in Montana, and I spent a good portion of my life there. I don’t have much to contribute to this discussion except to say what you’ve posted here couldn’t be further from the truth.

Montana is a rural western state, and so people naturally assume that it leans Republican, and that’s not the truth. The governor is a Democrat, as are the state’s two U.S. senators. The state legislature has been divided equally between the two parties for the better part of the last century, and if you look at city and local governments, you’ll find that most of them lean Democratic (with a few exceptions).

Montana is (or was, depending on how you wish to look at it) a huuuuuuuge union state. Montanans don’t trust corporations, for reasons already listed in this thread. In fact, if you look at the political campaigns on the state and local level, you’ll see a lot of the candidates framing their opponents corporate backing in an extraordinarily jaundiced light. They don’t like corporations, and they don’t invest any confidence in them. Politicians there could build an entire platform around the dangers of outside monied interests invading the state, and people would listen, completely and totally absorbed in what was being said.

To say the culture is “anti-tax” (not true) and “anti-government” (partially true) is misleading. They’re anti-meddling. That’s it. And that’s why they’re showing such ferocious opposition against the Citizens United ruling.

I was born and raised within 35 miles of a MT border…and spent 5 years teaching within 15 miles of a different MT border. I have family and friends who live in MT, some of which were government workers.

I stand by what I say.

I have to say your vision of your home state is rose colored.

[Terr]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Why didn’t the fine people of Montana just make bribary illegal?

Seriously. “Bribery”. Please.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Councilman Bricker, I will make sure you get elected by blanketing the airwaves and outspending any other candidates 10 to one in advertising dollars, if you vote my way.

Have I offered to bribe you?

No.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

No.

That’s interesting. Isn’t bribery about stuff of value. Am I not giving you stuff of value?

I was honestly asking, but I’d like to know the legal reasoning if you have the time.

[BigAppleBucky]

@Stratocaster

Not a snowball’s chance. Agreed. Not with this court.
CU was decided properly. Worst decision ever. Worse than Dredd Scott. Worse than Plessy v. Ferguson.

Following their logic, the president in 2016 might be GE.

[Tarwater]

@BlinkingDuck

I was born and raised within 35 miles of a MT border…and spent 5 years teaching within 15 miles of a different MT border. I have family and friends who live in MT, some of which were government workers.

I stand by what I say.

I have to say your vision of your home state is rose colored.

What do you mean, rose-colored? I gave you facts about the political climate there with very few opinions. Montana elects more Democrats than Republicans? True. Montana has a long history of organized labor? True. Montana politicians play on Montanans’ fears of corporate backing in politics? True. Are you going to refute any of that?

The only opinion in my entire post was my statement about Montana being an “anti-meddling” state. And I don’t understand how that makes my perception of the place “rose-colored,” since I never claimed that it was a good or bad thing.

You, on the other hand, despite the fact that you’ve never lived or worked there and your strongest connection to the state is that you “know a few people who work there,” continue to make claims that the entire population (or culture, or however you want to frame it) is “naturally naive” (???) and that they’d trust the word of a corporation, which given the very topic of this thread, is absurd beyond reason.

[BrainGlutton]

@Lobohan

Well, I’m convinced. George Will is an idiot.

What he isn’t understanding, is that huge corporations aren’t going to lean to both sides based on the intelligent quality of their messages. They are going to side with the group that wants to slash their taxes and repeal regulations.

Oh, he understands all right.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Lobohan

Councilman Bricker, I will make sure you get elected by blanketing the airwaves and outspending any other candidates 10 to one in advertising dollars, if you vote my way.

Have I offered to bribe you?

@Bricker

No.

Aren’t you precious! And should this conversation come to light, there’s simply no way that voter confidence would take a hit! :smack:

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@Lobohan

That’s interesting. Isn’t bribery about stuff of value. Am I not giving you stuff of value?

1bribe
noun \ˈbrīb
[ol]
[li]money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust[/li][li]something that serves to induce or influence[/li][/ol]Merriam-Webster

Maybe Bricker simply doesn’t have a dictionary? I should offer to send him one. Since it’s not money, he won’t even think it was an attempt at bribery…

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

That’s interesting. Isn’t bribery about stuff of value. Am I not giving you stuff of value?

I was honestly asking, but I’d like to know the legal reasoning if you have the time.

To complete the crime of bribery, you also have to show something more than the acceptance of a campaign contribution on the part of the official. As the Supreme Court observed in McCormick v US:

To hold otherwise would open to prosecution not only conduct that has long been thought to be well within the law but also conduct that in a very real sense is unavoidable so long as election campaigns are financed by private contributions or expenditures, as they have been from the beginning of the Nation. It would require statutory language more explicit than the Hobbs Act contains to justify a contrary conclusion.

The US Attorneys’ Criminal Resource Manual gives this guidance:

A bribery charge can be premised on a campaign contribution. But be careful. It is problematical that a gratuity charge under 201(c) can rest on a bona fide campaign contribution, unless the contribution was a ruse that masqueraded for a gift to the personal benefit of the public officer as was the case in Brewster, supra. This is because campaign contributions represent a necessary feature of the American political process, they normally inure to the benefit of a campaign committee rather than directly to the personal benefit of a public officer, and they are almost always given and received with a generalized expectation of currying favor with the candidate benefitting therefrom. For these reasons, recent Federal jurisprudence on the subject suggests substantial judicial reluctance to extend the Federal crime of gratuities under section 201(c) to bona fide campaign donations.

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

1bribe
noun \brb
[ol]
[li]money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust[/li][li]something that serves to induce or influence[/li][/ol]Merriam-Webster

Maybe Bricker simply doesn’t have a dictionary? I should offer to send him one. Since it’s not money, he won’t even think it was an attempt at bribery…

It may surprise you to learn that Merriam-Webster was not enacted by Congress or any state as its criminal code. As the relevant case law observes:

Serving constituents and supporting legislation that will benefit the district and individuals and groups therein is the everyday business of a legislator. It is also true that campaigns must be run and financed. Money is constantly being solicited on behalf of candidates, who run on platforms and who claim support on the basis of their views and what they intend to do or have done. Whatever ethical considerations and appearances may indicate, to hold that legislators commit [federal crimes] when they act for the benefit of constituents or support legislation furthering the interests of some of their constituents, shortly before or after campaign contributions are solicited and received from those beneficiaries, is an unrealistic assessment of what Congress could have meant by making it a crime to obtain property from another, with his consent, “under color of official right.” To hold otherwise would open to prosecution not only conduct that has long been thought to be well within the law but also conduct that in a very real sense is unavoidable so long as election campaigns are financed by private contributions or expenditures, as they have been from the beginning of the Nation.

Keep the dictionary. Maybe you can use it to prop up the copies of the US Code and the US Reporter you should try to read.

And understand.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

To complete the crime of bribery, you also have to show something more than the acceptance of a campaign contribution on the part of the official. As the Supreme Court observed in McCormick v US:

The US Attorneys’ Criminal Resource Manual gives this guidance:

Is post-Citizens United donations to a Super-PAC covered by that language?

Also, in my example, there was an explicit expectation of voting the way the donor wanted. Wouldn’t that push it to the limit?

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Is post-Citizens United donations to a Super-PAC covered by that language?

Also, in my example, there was an explicit expectation of voting the way the donor wanted. Wouldn’t that push it to the limit?

Campaign contributions are all, at their heart, premised on the idea that I am giving money to a candidate that will vote the way I want him to on issues that arise during his term. If I called Mitt Romney and said, “I’m sending your campaign a $2,000 campaign contribution, because I expect you to protect gun rights, appoint textualist Supreme Court justices, repeal the health care bill, and cut government spending,” no one would possibly consider that criminal.

The act becomes prosecutable if the benefit is given to the candidate, rather than his campaign, or if the contribution is an explicit quid-pro-quo for action on a specific piece of legislation.

If your example had been about a specific bill or zoning decision, it probably would have crossed the criminal line.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Campaign contributions are all, at their heart, premised on the idea that I am giving money to a candidate that will vote the way I want him to on issues that arise during his term. If I called Mitt Romney and said, “I’m sending your campaign a $2,000 campaign contribution, because I expect you to protect gun rights, appoint textualist Supreme Court justices, repeal the health care bill, and cut government spending,” no one would possibly consider that criminal.

The act becomes prosecutable if the benefit is given to the candidate, rather than his campaign, or if the contribution is an explicit quid-pro-quo for action on a specific piece of legislation.

If your example had been about a specific bill or zoning decision, it probably would have crossed the criminal line.

Thanks, that’s good to know. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

We may now return to scowling at each other.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

The appearance of corruption comes about because you know that, if you don’t support a particular piece of legislation, you will see your opponent get massive amounts of money in the next election to defeat you. It is inconceivable that this would not affect most people’s judgement, especially people willing to go through the ugly process of raising campaign funds in order to get elected office.

In a perfect world, yes: you’d put money forward to support people who hold principled positions that align with yours. But ours is not a perfect world, so the money you put forward will change people’s positions.

It boggles my mind that folks either dispute that dynamic, or are okay with it.

[Oakminster]

In a perfect world, there would be no such thing a professional politicians. Good, honest citizens would serve the public for a term or two, then return to private life. While in office, they would act in the best interest of the nation, rather than following a partisan agenda, and have the balls to make unpopular decisions if they believed it was the best course of action, regardless of of political considerations.

That world has never existed. And never will.

[BlinkingDuck]

@Tarwater

What do you mean, rose-colored? I gave you facts about the political climate there with very few opinions. Montana elects more Democrats than Republicans? True. Montana has a long history of organized labor? True. Montana politicians play on Montanans’ fears of corporate backing in politics? True. Are you going to refute any of that?

The only opinion in my entire post was my statement about Montana being an “anti-meddling” state. And I don’t understand how that makes my perception of the place “rose-colored,” since I never claimed that it was a good or bad thing.

You, on the other hand, despite the fact that you’ve never lived or worked there and your strongest connection to the state is that you “know a few people who work there,” continue to make claims that the entire population (or culture, or however you want to frame it) is “naturally naive” (???) and that they’d trust the word of a corporation, which given the very topic of this thread, is absurd beyond reason.

Uhuh…facts. Yup…yessirree.

Look, I’m sorry. Your admiration for your home state is admirable, though misguided. I have had plenty of contact with your state having spent 30 years of my life around there. Upper Western culture doesn’t just end on a dotted line on a map.

Your state is corrupt and that corruption spreads down to pretty low levels. Even in South Dakota, I never had a law enforcement official try to extort money out of me..and in MT in happened THREE TIMES. When I tried to find a teaching job in MT, the pay was a joke…even by local area standards (MT, WY, ND, Idaho). Your pay for public officials was like-wise (unless things have changed in the past 25 years.

ND, WY and Idaho are looked down upon by many, but MT was a joke…and that was saying something.

You might not to want to believe it and you might not accept people thinking that…but it was generally considered that dealing with MT meant some level of corruption. They have had 25 years since then to change this and I really hope they did.