3 ms·
> (A Crowdpac campaign has funded close to $4 million dollars to challenge Susan Collins when she's up for reelection due to her supreme court vote; that most l
by thrower123 8y ago
> (A Crowdpac campaign has funded close to $4 million dollars to challenge Susan Collins when she's up for reelection due to her supreme court vote; that most likely won't scale)
This sort of thing should be illegal, particularly when it is out-of-state interests injecting money. If you live in another state, vote out your own reps you don't like.
The harassment the poor woman has been put through lately is obscene.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoMoney is considered speech. The legislative and judicial branches condone such actions, and the example you take issue with is the result of representatives having national impact (in this case, voting for the appointment of a supreme court judge).
- entee 8y agoAnd the judges she have been voting for (not just the supreme court, but across the federal judiciary where she's voted to confirm virtually every one of Trump's judge nominations) are generally in favor of fewer limits on campaign finance laws. I think if you vote by proxy for less campaign finance regulation, you should be fine with facing the results.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tracker1 8y agoRequiring open finances for any organization that donates to political campaigns or advertisements for, or against a given party or candidate would go a long way. Eliminating corporate personhood as a legal construct or adding a non-living entity construct as an amendment would help too.