# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 250
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4981 "2016-07-17T05:11:01Z")
The primary issue surrounding CU is not _that_ millions or billions of dollars is going into campaigns, the issue is _whence it is coming_. AAUI, Ms. Clinton (theoretically) would be pursuing transparency in campaign finance, which would technically not prohibit or restrict the outlay of gelt, it would just make sure that we would all know who was laying it out, and to whom. ---
**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:** [July 17, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4982 "2016-07-17T19:25:44Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Clinton wants a [Constitutional Amendment](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-citizens-united_us_578a42cfe4b08608d334c7bd?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&yptr=yahoo) to overturn Citizen’s United. > > As much as I despise the U.C. decision, I don’t think it comes anywhere near the seriousness that an Amendment demands. > Along with the near impossibility of passing an Amendment. Is there a mechanism to overturn it besides that or the court taking a case that can overturn it? Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4983 "2016-07-17T19:33:59Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Is there a mechanism to overturn it besides that or the court taking a case that can overturn it? > > Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk Is it possible to write new legislation that would avoid the issue? Or amend the current law? It just seems near impossible to go the amendment route. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4984 "2016-07-17T21:50:45Z")
Yes, the last amendment to be ratified took a couple of hundred of years. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4985 "2016-07-17T22:27:51Z")
Prior to that, the highly controversial 26th amendment, which set the minimum voting age at 18, took about three and a half months from passage to threshold for ratification. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2016, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4986 "2016-07-17T23:25:09Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Corinne Brown says that the feds might have caught the Orlando shooter had they not been busy investigating her: > > [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-corrine-brown-pulse-shooting-20160713-story.html](http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-corrine-brown-pulse-shooting-20160713-story.html) Credit where credit is due. This is a truly appalling thing to say, this would fit in well in the SRIotD thread were the parties reversed. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4987 "2016-07-18T01:04:15Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Is it possible to write new legislation that would avoid the issue? Or amend the current law? Since “the current law” that this decision was based on is our Constitution, specifically the right to free speech, the only way to amend that is through a Constitutional Amendment. Or it can be overturned by another decision by a later Supreme Court. That’s happened quite a few times. For example, the same-sex marriage decision last summer overturned the Supreme Court [Baker vs. Nelson decision](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson) of 1972. To “avoid the issue”, laws that prevent secret contributions are allowed. Many people think that if the voters were able to see who got contributions from where, that would mitigate the bad effects of Citizens United. (Personally, I’m not so sure.) So there are efforts to pass laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions. These are generally opposed by the same large contributors. There are also some efforts to get at this from other directions. There is starting to be quite a trend of stockholder resolutions that would restrict the corporations political contributions, either by directly limiting them, requiring public disclosure to stockholders, etc. These are generally opposed by the management, and usually defeated, with the votes of large mutual funds, etc. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4988 "2016-07-18T05:19:26Z")
The proposed DISCLOSE Act is 100% constitutional provided there are no exemptions. You can’t horsetrade 1st amendment rights. Last time they tried to exempt the NRA: > **[Dems close to campaign finance deal](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/06/dems-close-to-campaign-finance-deal-038500)** > > An offer to exempt the National Rifle Association could let them bring the bill to the floor this week. Given that Anthony KEnnedy’s decision in Citizens United was based on government choosing between “favored” and “disfavored” speakers, DISCLOSE would probably fall before the Supreme Court if it favored some speakers over others. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4989 "2016-07-18T05:45:09Z")
“Contributors” is the simple and direct noun form, since they are defined by an act, “contributing”. Trying to get away with calling them “speakers” is buggering the question, that is, assuming what you want for a conclusion as a given. Subtle. But you gotta get up pretty early in the afternoon to get one past me. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4990 "2016-07-18T06:49:19Z")
Since the bill was granting an exemption to a speaker(the NRA) rather than a contributor, the bill was favoring one speaker over all the others. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4991 "2016-07-18T18:26:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > May not matter much longer. There are signs, signs and wonders, that the era of big donor politics is passing. The mass market advertising they bought is less and less effective, it appears. Remember when the Pubbies sank millions of dollars into New Hampshire to get Jeb(!) a couple of poll points? Zero, zip, zilch, _nada_ damn thing. > > Remember when Jeb(!) was the presumptive nominee, the shoo-in, because he had sewn up all the big money donors? Hell, do you even remember Jeb(!)? > > And the burgeoning power of small-donor campaigns, campaigns financed directly from the people for two, five, ten dollars each. How long will big money donors piss their money away if there is no solid result? Of course, if the Kochs and the Adelsons of the world want to toss bundles of Benjamins out their windows, well, no problem, I suppose. > > Power to the people. Groovy. Money is still influential in smaller, local elections. They may not get a Senator or a President, but take over the local state houses and you have a new obstacle for Dems to overcome. After Congress failed to block Obamacare, many state legislatures and governors did what the national Congress wasn’t able to do and refuse to expand it. I don’t want such a thing to be the norm and so I still want money out of politics as much as possible ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4992 "2016-07-18T19:10:21Z")
Concur, down to the last jot and tittle. But the examples are suggestive of a change bubbling up from the people to those who think to control us. Take TV advertising and radio, newspaper ads. Used to be the gold standard, yes? I suggest that is no longer as effective as it was, and getting less so. To grossly oversimplify, Facebook reaches more minds than NBC. As many as Fox News? No, prolly not, but Fox preaches directly to the choir. And _only_ the choir! How many Trump ads did you see? Trump ran an entire campaign by saying crazy shit that made the news! Every night! And he didn’t spend shit! Hillary rolled out a big ad campaign recently, and her numbers appear to be going up. But is one the result of the other? The example I belabor is Jeb(!) spending a metric shit ton of money on New Hampshire’s primary, hoping to get just a few points in the polls, and failed spectacularly! Jeb(!) was not a great candidate, having the charisma of cottage cheese, but if the standard paradigm was still valid, he would have got _something_! But he didn’t. How many Bernie ads did you see on mainstream media? Who were his Adelson, his Koch Bros.? And yet he turned in an amazing performance. If the Pubbies money no longer works, or soon _will_ no longer work, why should we give a rat’s patoot about Citizen’s United? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4993 "2016-07-18T19:17:08Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Concur, down to the last jot and tittle. But the examples are suggestive of a change bubbling up from the people to those who think to control us. Take TV advertising and radio, newspaper ads. Used to be the gold standard, yes? I suggest that is no longer as effective as it was, and getting less so. To grossly oversimplify, Facebook reaches more minds than NBC. As many as Fox News? No, prolly not, but Fox preaches directly to the choir. And _only_ the choir! > > How many Trump ads did you see? Trump ran an entire campaign by saying crazy shit that made the news! Every night! And he didn’t spend shit! Hillary rolled out a big ad campaign recently, and her numbers appear to be going up. But is one the result of the other? > > The example I belabor is Jeb(!) spending a metric shit ton of money on New Hampshire’s primary, hoping to get just a few points in the polls, and failed spectacularly! Jeb(!) was not a great candidate, having the charisma of cottage cheese, but if the standard paradigm was still valid, he would have got _something_! > > But he didn’t. How many Bernie ads did you see on mainstream media? Who were his Adelson, his Koch Bros.? And yet he turned in an amazing performance. > > **If the Pubbies money no longer works, or soon _will_ no longer work, why should we give a rat’s patoot about Citizen’s United?** Because it’s too early to know if the trend will continue or if this election is an anomaly. And even if it continues, it can always swing back. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4994 "2016-07-18T19:41:54Z")
Wrecking ball only has to swing once. If my fondest dreams come true, and the Pubbies are totally massacred this time out…ain’t nothin’ gonna be the same. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4995 "2016-07-18T20:38:20Z")
Well I hope you’re right. But on to the point, I just don’t think such money _should_ be in politics, regardless of it being influential or not. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4996 "2016-07-18T23:45:10Z")
Since money is required to do just about anything in this world, you’re not really talking about getting money out of politics, but getting SOME people’s money out of politics. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4997 "2016-07-18T23:52:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Since money is required to do just about anything in this world, you’re not really talking about getting money out of politics, but getting SOME people’s money out of politics. Not all of their money. Just the obscene amount of it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4998 "2016-07-18T23:57:10Z")
Which means you’ll have to overturn Buckley too. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/4999 "2016-07-18T23:57:50Z")
Well, fuck me, I was _sure_ he was dead! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/5000 "2016-07-18T23:58:56Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …but getting SOME people’s money out of politics. Curses! Foiled again! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=249) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=251)