# The Supreme Court may be considering the legalization of bribery **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877 "2016-05-04T12:45:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**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:** [May 7, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/101 "2016-05-07T23:58:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > **Wolfpup** : Do you think that any of the current SCOTUS justices would uphold a law, passed by Congress, that limited the amount money individuals could spend on advocating for political causes to $1,000? Would that decision mean that “money is speech” and if not, why not? > [@wolfpup](#): > > The question is fundamentally about where one draws restrictive lines, much as you said yourself earlier. Very broad prohibitions on “advocating anything, at any time” are obviously not going to fly. You’re never going to completely remove the influence of money in politics because money is fundamentally about shaping your environment, in every sense of the term. But this is worlds removed from reasonable restrictions on excessive political influence, restrictions that restore a more balanced political dialog and give ordinary people some hope and faith that governments might actually look after their interests instead of being inevitable servants of a moneyed plutocracy. You lost me. Earlier you said the argument about drawing lines was “nonsense”. Now you’re using it yourself. The question I asked was why that ruling would NOT be one that could be characterized as equating money with speech. But if you want to focus on ordinary people, let’s up the amount to $1M, so that no “ordinary person” is affected by such a law. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/102 "2016-05-08T00:31:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You lost me. Earlier you said the argument about drawing lines was “nonsense”. Now you’re using it yourself. The question I asked was why that ruling would NOT be one that could be characterized as equating money with speech. No, I didn’t say “drawing lines was nonsense”, I said that **your argument in using that as a distinguishing factor was nonsense** , wherein you claimed that drawing lines on spending was somehow different than how we treat speech, and I was making the point that limits are properly and routinely imposed on all speech where it serves the interests of democracy and social order. This is what I said: The “drawing the line” argument is nonsense, no matter how many times you repeat it. Lines are drawn in matters of conventional speech, too. That’s why there are laws against libel and slander, threats, and inciting violence. Trying to argue that the court didn’t equate money and speech because they didn’t deem it absolute is a groundless argument, because no form of speech is absolutely protected in all circumstances. The court ruled that money is speech because they overturned laws on spending money to achieve political ends on the basis of First Amendment speech protections. Simple as that. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > But if you want to focus on ordinary people, let’s up the amount to $1M, so that no “ordinary person” is affected by such a law. The amount for what? There are and can be different spending limits on different political activities although, sadly, and increasingly, no spending limits at all on most of them. But yes, specific spending limits, or the prohibition of moneyed intervention at all, depending on the situation in question, is part of the solution. At its core, what some of us are asking for is for the Koch brothers and Adelson and their ilk to have to endure a mere ten thousand times the power of ordinary people instead of ten billion times the power, so that we the people may have a better world to live in. ---
**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:** [May 8, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/103 "2016-05-08T01:00:20Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The court ruled that money is speech because they overturned laws on spending money to achieve political ends on the basis of First Amendment speech protections. Simple as that. And that is exactly what would happen in my hypothetical. Exactly. So claiming that one ruling is the same as “money is speech” but the there is not is, to use your phrase, nonsense. > [@](#): > > The amount for what? There are and can be different spending limits on different political activities although, sadly, and increasingly, no spending limits at all on most of them. > > But yes, specific spending limits, or the prohibition of moneyed intervention at all, depending on the situation in question, is part of the solution. At its core, what some of us are asking for is for the Koch brothers and Adelson and their ilk to have to endure a mere ten thousand times the power of ordinary people instead of ten billion times the power, so that we the people may have a better world to live in. The amount in my hypothetical. Change $1,000 to $1,000,000. But my hypothetical also had nothing to do with what you think the laws ought to be. It was about what the SCOTUS would decide. _Do you think that any of the current SCOTUS justices would uphold a law, passed by Congress, that limited the amount money individuals could spend on advocating for political causes to [del]$1,000[/del] $1,000,000? Would that decision mean that “money is speech” and if not, why not?_ I’ll answer for you: No. None of them would uphold this law. If you want to go down that road, then all of them, not just Scalia, think “money is speech”. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/104 "2016-05-08T13:45:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > _Do you think that any of the current SCOTUS justices would uphold a law, passed by Congress, that limited the amount money individuals could spend on advocating for political causes to [del]$1,000[/del] $1,000,000? Would that decision mean that “money is speech” and if not, why not?_ > > I’ll answer for you: No. None of them would uphold this law. If you want to go down that road, then all of them, not just Scalia, think “money is speech”. You answered for me, but unfortunately you answered wrong. We can be sure of two things: (1) that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past in precisely the way you claim they never would, and (2) that in every single one of the major campaign finance cases that has come up before the Roberts court, the majority ruling to dismantle yet more campaign finance regulation was opposed by a vigorous dissent by the four progressive justices. Examples of item 1 are _Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce_ in which a more sanely constituted Court ruled that “corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections” and _McConnell v. FEC_ which upheld most of the BCRA. _Citizens United_ – which I’ll say again was deliberately orchestrated by the gang of conservatives led by Roberts to be a much broader case than was originally brought by the plaintiffs – overturned most of the latter and all of the former, with, again, vigorous dissent from the progressive side of the court. Part of Stevens’ dissent, which he felt strongly enough about to read from the bench, was the following: Stevens referenced a number of major First Amendment cases to argue that the Court had long recognized that to deny Congress the power to safeguard against “the improper use of money to influence the result [of an election] is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection”. After recognizing that in _Buckley v. Valeo_ the Court had struck down portions of a broad prohibition of independent expenditures from any sources, Stevens argued that nevertheless Buckley recognized the legitimacy of “prophylactic” measures for limiting campaign spending and found the prevention of “corruption” to be a reasonable goal for legislation. Consequently, Stevens argued that Buckley left the door open for carefully tailored future regulation. > **[Citizens United v. FEC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Dissent)** > > Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court held 5–4 that the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other associations. > The majority held... So no, I don’t agree that one can conclude that “none of them would uphold” your hypothetical law on spending restrictions. Only the ones who, like Scalia, believe in the simplistic all-encompassing libertarian mantra that money is inseparable from speech, and that any such separation is “utterly impossible”. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/105 "2016-05-08T15:33:52Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Your laughable extremism and hopeless intransigence on this issue has been duly noted before, but it’s on spectacular display here. That principle is “solid” according to four far-right lunatics and one libertarian on the Supreme Court in the recent spate of decisions, staunchly and consistently opposed by the progressives in every single case. With one of those lunatics now deceased, it’s doubtful than anything so flagrant would pass today. The McDonnell case will be an interesting test. I would be happy for **Bricker** to be proved right and and the ruling to be a narrow one on the jury instruction question, or else perhaps the court will be tied in a stalemate. So far you’ve offered absolutely NOTHING of substance. It appears to be your position that progressive justices have no understanding of the Constitution, which makes exactly as much sense as the rest of your blather. [/QUOTE] You talk a good game, but you offer absolutely zero substance. Stop wasting my time. > [@](#): > > So you’re saying the government _ **cannot** _ ban dissenting ads against _Citizens United_, because money _ **is** _ speech after all. Perhaps you shouldn’t post while intoxicated. I didn’t say that. And it really doesn’t matter. If you want to play this stupid game, I"m not interested. I’ve already demonstrated the absurdity of your views. If you have a substantive reply, give it. Boasting and blather is a waste of my time. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/106 "2016-05-08T15:35:18Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So you’re saying the government _ **cannot** _ ban dissenting ads against _Citizens United_, Are you saying the government COULD ban such ads? No blather or boasting please. A simple yes or no. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/107 "2016-05-08T15:39:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A Hypothetical Court: “The government can’t limit the amount of money newspapers spend on ink in order to limit what newspapers print.” > > WOLFPUP: Ink and speech – inseparable and forever united as one. Ink is speech! Ink is speech! I notice that Wolfpup conveniently ignored my comment. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/108 "2016-05-08T15:46:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > This would be not just a straw man, but one so poorly constructed that the entire argument teeters on the brink of incoherence. Bullshit. It’s a perfect analogy. > [@](#): > > If we lived in a world where the only possible means of mass communication was the printed media – newspapers, books, and magazines and nothing else – and if a particular small elite controlled access to most of the ink and paper and used that to ensure that their political views were persistently dominant, then you would have a valid analogy. In that situation ink and paper really does equate to speech, and speech of a particularly influential kind, and one might wish the government to step in and enact measures to ensure that, in support of a functional democracy, all views were fairly heard, not just those of the ink oligopoly. And you might have the usual gang of libertarian pinheads demanding that the government not interfere with the Natural Order of Things, and also – the libertarians’ constant fervent hope – would the government please go away and remember to turn off the lights on the way out. More bullshit. You can’t just declare that you can limit one form of communication because there are other forms. > [@](#): > > Did Scalia address any questions of any specific enabling technology like in your ridiculous fabrication? Of course not, he was referring to money as a universal enabler of all speech – that is, all speech of the kind that matters politically and sways the direction of democracies, excepting only private conversations and shouting on street corners, which tends not to have much effect. In this critically important context, money is speech. Absolutely, unequivocally, and forever united as one. Scalia at least admitted it. Your obsession with money = speech just proves you wrong. The ONLY reason you want to limit spending on speech is to limit the speech that the money brings. You think it’s not fair that some people have “too much” speech due to money. That’s you admitting that your limits on spending are limits on speech. > [@](#): > > And you don’t do your own credibility any favors by quoting **lance strongarm** , who has long since left the realm of rationality and gone off the deep end on this issue. The fact that you’re using personal attacks shows how desperate you are. > [@](#): > > The question is fundamentally about where one draws restrictive lines, much as you said yourself earlier. Very broad prohibitions on “advocating anything, at any time” are obviously not going to fly. You’re never going to completely remove the influence of money in politics because money is fundamentally about shaping your environment, in every sense of the term. But this is worlds removed from reasonable restrictions on excessive political influence, restrictions that restore a more balanced political dialog and give ordinary people some hope and faith that governments might actually look after their interests instead of being inevitable servants of a moneyed plutocracy. You cannot remove “excessive political influence.” That’s just another way of saying you want to limit speech. You may not do that. You may not decide what is excessive, or substitute your judgement for the peoples’. No. You think like a tyrant. The First Amendment was written to protect us from people like you. Thank God for that. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/109 "2016-05-08T16:00:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > reasonable restrictions on excessive political influence, restrictions that restore a more balanced political dialog The government cannot “balance” dialogue. The government cannot restrict influence. Those are violations of the First Amendment. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/110 "2016-05-08T17:00:18Z")
The principle of free speech is a fine one, but is not improved by thinking of it as a dogma. It is not an inviolable bedrock of certainty, it is as malleable and flexible as any of our other principles, and wisely so. Do you look back longingly on a time when free speech was such a dogma, and universally adhered to, or do you look forward to that day to arrive? Because it never was, and I sincerely doubt it ever shall. In this instance, the valid principle of free speech is perverted and distorted. Gosh, we cannot inhibit the free speech rights of rich folks, that would be wrong! True, the Koch Brothers have a hundred thousand times more political power than the overage Joe, which runs roughshod over our ideals of political equality BUT!..we can’t do anything about that, tough shit, gotta protect the sacred First Amendment! Principles are amenable to debate and compromise, that is what makes principles valid and worthy, and dogma a crock of shit. Many of us crave a bedrock to base all ensuing questions upon, a principle that _can_ be dogma and remain worthy of our respect. Absolutes are for the weak. Sith happens. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/111 "2016-05-08T20:50:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > In this instance, the valid principle of free speech is perverted and distorted. Gosh, we cannot inhibit the free speech rights of rich folks, that would be wrong! Yes, it would be. The idea that we can limit rights based on the wealth of the person is absurd. > [@](#): > > True, the Koch Brothers have a hundred thousand times more political power than the overage Joe, which runs roughshod over our ideals of political equality No they don’t. They have no more political power than anyone else. They simply have the ability to speak more. So what? The people don’t have to listen. The people aren’t limited in the information they can find from any other source. > [@](#): > > BUT!..we can’t do anything about that, tough shit, gotta protect the sacred First Amendment! Exactly. It’s scary that you would mock civil rights this way. > [@](#): > > Principles are amenable to debate and compromise, that is what makes principles valid and worthy, and dogma a crock of shit. Many of us crave a bedrock to base all ensuing questions upon, a principle that _can_ be dogma and remain worthy of our respect. Absolutes are for the weak. Sith happens. Absolutes are for the strong. Just as it takes strength to uphold the rights of people you dislike in any other instance. Just as we uphold free speech for Nazis or the KKK or the legal rights of child molestors and murderers in court, we MUST uphold speech rights of the rich or the right wingers. That is strong and that is courage. (It’s the philosophy of the ACLU, by the way, which SUPPORTED the Citizens United decision. That should make you think about it at least). Compromise and capitulation is for the weak. The First Amendment was pretty damn absolute. It protects us from people like you who. The Founders knew that tyrants would use thinking just like yours. ---
**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:** [May 8, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/112 "2016-05-08T20:50:59Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You answered for me, but unfortunately you answered wrong. We can be sure of two things: (1) that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past in precisely the way you claim they never would, and (2) that in every single one of the major campaign finance cases that has come up before the Roberts court, the majority ruling to dismantle yet more campaign finance regulation was opposed by a vigorous dissent by the four progressive justices. > > Examples of item 1 are _Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce_ in which a more sanely constituted Court ruled that “corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections” That example fails on 3 counts: 1. In my hypothetical I said “individuals”, not corporations 2. I also said “political causes”, which is much broader category than “campaigns” 3. The limitation was only on the expenditure from “general funds” by corporations, but did not limit spending from an independent fund set up solely for supporting poitical causes. > [@](#): > > and _McConnell v. FEC_ which upheld most of the BCRA. Again, this was not a law restricting money spent on advocating for “political causes”, but on money contributed to political parties or money spent by political parties. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/113 "2016-05-08T21:10:43Z")
Could the government ban the sale of bibles based on the idea that it can regulate spending on rights, as oppose to regulating the rights themselves? So as long as it allowed possession of bibles, it wasn’t infringing on religious liberty? Could it do so based on the idea that Christianity has too much influence in our country? Could the government ban all TV news from spending money based on the idea that TV news has too much influence? As long as it didn’t actually ban the news, just spending money to produce it, would it be okay? It’s not fair that we all can’t have our own news channels, after all. Could the government ban the creation or promotion of a political film - not the film itself, just spending any money to make it? After all, it’s just not fair that only people with the money to make political films have more influence than the rest of us. Like opposition to Citizens United, these are obviously laughable nonsense ideas. They sound like Orwellian excuses to get around speech rights - which is what they are. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/114 "2016-05-08T22:37:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > in every single one of the major campaign finance cases that has come up before the Roberts court, Citizens United was not a campaign finance case. No candidate campaigns were involved. That’s why the law was shit to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/115 "2016-05-08T23:32:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > That example fails on 3 counts: > > 1. In my hypothetical I said “individuals”, not corporations > 2. I also said “political causes”, which is much broader category than “campaigns” > 3. The limitation was only on the expenditure from “general funds” by corporations, but did not limit spending from an independent fund set up solely for supporting poitical causes. > > … Again, this was not a law restricting money spent on advocating for “political causes”, but on money contributed to political parties or money spent by political parties. The problem is, John, that many cases and the opinions of more progressive justices supported prohibitions on all of them. Just as examples, going down in order, the dissent in _Mccutcheon_ supported limits on individual contributions, not just corporations. _Citizens United_ itself was all about a much broader category than just “campaigns”, and again, legal limits were strongly defended by all four progressive justices. Previous SCOTUS decisions that this gang overturned supported all of these principles in one way or another. And the distinction between corporate “general funds” and “independent funds” was largely irrelevant in most of the rulings and is hardly a central issue. Since none of those appear to be absolutes, and progressive justices and analysts have consistently argued for every one of those limitations, what makes you think they are somehow inviolable absolutes? > [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The fact that you’re using personal attacks shows how desperate you are. No, **lance strongarm** , that wasn’t a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. Here’s a personal attack so you can tell the difference. You are a brainless zealot and a danger to society. Unthinking morons like yourself who carry around little copies of the Constitution and quote from it as matters of absolute faith like Bible-thumping Soldiers of the Lord and demand that any deviance from the Sacred Word is heresy and punishable by death – whether you do this literally or figuratively matters not a whit – are no better than either the theocratic Mullahs of today or the Inquisitioners of yesterday. Society and civilization are the creations of man, believe it or not, and so they are always imperfect and always being refined and improved, and the process of evolving our society is sorely impeded by driveling pontificating anti-intellectual throwbacks to medieval ignorance like yourself. And this is why I no longer seriously engage with you on this topic. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/116 "2016-05-08T23:52:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, **lance strongarm** , that wasn’t a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. Here’s a personal attack so you can tell the difference. > > You are a brainless zealot and a danger to society. Unthinking morons like yourself who carry around little copies of the Constitution and quote from it as matters of absolute faith like Bible-thumping Soldiers of the Lord and demand that any deviance from the Sacred Word is heresy and punishable by death – whether you do this literally or figuratively matters not a whit – are no better than either the theocratic Mullahs of today or the Inquisitioners of yesterday. Society and civilization are the creations of man, believe it or not, and so they are always imperfect and always being refined and improved, and the process of evolving our society is sorely impeded by driveling pontificating anti-intellectual throwbacks to medieval ignorance like yourself. And this is why I no longer seriously engage with you on this topic. You no longer engage seriously with me on this topic because you CAN’T. You are smart enough to know you’d lose, badly. You already have. I’ve exposed the complete idiocy of your opinions, and you have nothing substantive to respond with, so all you can do is throw out insults. It’s really sad, actually. If you had any pride or dignity, you’d just silently slink away instead. Rest assured that I’ll continue to post nothing but substantive responses to your posts to continue to expose your nonsense, even if you can’t manage a serious reply and have to cover up your failures with insults and empty claims. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/117 "2016-05-09T05:24:02Z")
**Lance** , when they gave you the bottle of self-esteem pills, they did remind you to only take one a day, right? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/118 "2016-05-09T12:48:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Lance** , when they gave you the bottle of self-esteem pills, they did remind you to only take one a day, right? I know this is the pit and you can get away with stupid shit but that doesn’t mean you should. Wolfpup can’t muster a response to any of my posts. Can you? What say you about #113? ---
**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:** [May 9, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/119 "2016-05-09T15:58:52Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > I know this is the pit and you can get away with stupid shit but that doesn’t mean you should. > > Wolfpup can’t muster a response to any of my posts. Can you? What say you about #113? That it is idiotic. Did no one ever warn you not to go into a fight mad? Because you need to mop a lot of spittle up off the floor. It is getting dangerously slippery in here. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877/120 "2016-05-09T16:02:01Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > That it is idiotic. Did no one ever warn you not to go into a fight mad? Because you need to mop a lot of spittle up off the floor. It is getting dangerously slippery in here. More bullshit. Is there nobody here who can offer substance instead of stupid insults? And it’s funny that you focus on me while ignoring the gallon of spittle coming from Wolfpup in the first place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supreme-court-may-be-considering-the-legalization-of-bribery/753877.md?page=7)