3 ms·

EDIT: The article does break down the purpose of Section 1615, and shed light on its context - I did not see that the article continued beyond the massive pictu

by Helmet 9y ago

EDIT: The article does break down the purpose of Section 1615, and shed light on its context - I did not see that the article continued beyond the massive picture below the blurb that I quoted.

eduren 9y ago
From the exact same article: The central canard of these attacks is that John McCain did not, in fact, add "Section 1615" to the defense authorization act, which is now being finalized by a conference between the House and Senate. This clause does not exist at all in the Senate language. Rather, it was inserted into the House legislation by U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama.
psychometry 9y ago
I think anyone who continued reading after that sentence could shed some light on it. You, apparently, did not: "The central canard of these attacks is that John McCain did not, in fact, add "Section 1615" to the defense authorization act, which is now being finalized by a conference between the House and Senate. This clause does not exist at all in the Senate language. Rather, it was inserted into the House legislation by U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama."
tclancy 9y ago
It's very strange you would read that bit entirely but miss the multiple paragraphs directly below it saying it is equivocally untrue.
- Helmet 9y ago
  All I saw was a large picture below the article and didn't scroll all the way down. I've updated my comment after this was raised to my attention.
apendleton 9y ago
Other people have pointed out that this specific thing didn't happen. More generally: I worked in policy around money in politics for five years. It's every campaign finance reporter or researcher's dream to find this kind of direct campaign contribution quid pro quo. We never do, because this basically doesn't ever happen. Campaign contribution limits are too low for any single donor to really make the difference either way, and to the extent that rich people contribute, they tend overwhelmingly to contribute to candidates already sympathetic to their issues in the hopes that they'll win, rather than to candidates not sympathetic to their issues in the hopes that they'll change sides. The avenue that actually moves policy is lobbying, which attracts about ten times as much spending per year at the federal level. Almost nobody writes about it though, because the disclosure requirements are so lax that it's usually impossible to piece together a story about it.
Cacti 9y ago
It's propaganda, purposeful ignorance cloaked in feigned fright, designed to invent a bogeyman that doesn't exist (presumably to replace Soros), and to diminish/slander McCain's coming activities against Trump. 1615 doesn't restrict the military from investing in new launch systems. What it says is that we already have launch infrastructure, so if you're going to spend money on more, it either needs to be compatible/in-line with the existing infrastructure, or you need to have a good reason (which are quite extensive). That's all it says. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text/pcs#toc-HC5190884B69542A888D0BF9CF9C58CFC https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810...

by Helmet 9y ago

EDIT: The article does break down the purpose of Section 1615, and shed light on its context - I did not see that the article continued beyond the massive picture below the blurb that I quoted.

eduren 9y ago

From the exact same article: The central canard of these attacks is that John McCain did not, in fact, add "Section 1615" to the defense authorization act, which is now being finalized by a conference between the House and Senate. This clause does not exist at all in the Senate language. Rather, it was inserted into the House legislation by U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama.

psychometry 9y ago

I think anyone who continued reading after that sentence could shed some light on it. You, apparently, did not: "The central canard of these attacks is that John McCain did not, in fact, add "Section 1615" to the defense authorization act, which is now being finalized by a conference between the House and Senate. This clause does not exist at all in the Senate language. Rather, it was inserted into the House legislation by U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama."

tclancy 9y ago

It's very strange you would read that bit entirely but miss the multiple paragraphs directly below it saying it is equivocally untrue.

Helmet 9y ago
All I saw was a large picture below the article and didn't scroll all the way down. I've updated my comment after this was raised to my attention.

apendleton 9y ago

Other people have pointed out that this specific thing didn't happen. More generally: I worked in policy around money in politics for five years. It's every campaign finance reporter or researcher's dream to find this kind of direct campaign contribution quid pro quo. We never do, because this basically doesn't ever happen. Campaign contribution limits are too low for any single donor to really make the difference either way, and to the extent that rich people contribute, they tend overwhelmingly to contribute to candidates already sympathetic to their issues in the hopes that they'll win, rather than to candidates not sympathetic to their issues in the hopes that they'll change sides. The avenue that actually moves policy is lobbying, which attracts about ten times as much spending per year at the federal level. Almost nobody writes about it though, because the disclosure requirements are so lax that it's usually impossible to piece together a story about it.

Cacti 9y ago

It's propaganda, purposeful ignorance cloaked in feigned fright, designed to invent a bogeyman that doesn't exist (presumably to replace Soros), and to diminish/slander McCain's coming activities against Trump. 1615 doesn't restrict the military from investing in new launch systems. What it says is that we already have launch infrastructure, so if you're going to spend money on more, it either needs to be compatible/in-line with the existing infrastructure, or you need to have a good reason (which are quite extensive). That's all it says. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text/pcs#toc-HC5190884B69542A888D0BF9CF9C58CFC https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810...