16 ms·

Bloomberg pays off $20m debts of 31,000 felons so they can vote in Florida

44 points by gmac 6y ago

MulliMulli 6y ago
What an absurd voting system.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  It is not so absurd to have a system that somewhat disincentivizes politicians from pandering to criminals. If those criminals all were KKK members, you probably would be a little more uneasy about them voting.
  - ansaso 6y ago
    In reality they aren't KKK members though. Instead they are disproportionately black and other minorities. Regardless of whether or not you think incarceration of minorities is systemized disenfranchisement, I think any loophole that hypothetically allows the system to chose who may vote is a bigger threat to democracy than an incentive to appeal to criminals. Totally agree with your point that incentivizing "pandering to criminals" can be a bad thing though, just the lesser of the two imo.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      > Instead they are disproportionately black and other minorities. Disproportionate to what? Their share of the population, or their share of homicides committed? (Using homicide because, unlike other crimes, it's hard to bias the numbers by over-policing. You'll catch more jay-walkers if you assign more police to an area, but you'll get roughly the same number of dead bodies.) > Totally agree with your point that incentivizing "pandering to criminals" can be a bad thing though If so many people are considered criminals that pandering to them is required to win elections, then perhaps it's the legal system that's in the wrong.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > In reality they aren't KKK members though. Instead they are disproportionately black and other minorities. They are overwhelmingly felons. The disenfranchisement rate is highest among blacks at 7.8%, so 92.2% of blacks, so the overwhelming majority, is not affected by this at all. What makes you think the majority of blacks would welcome the enfranchisement of criminals that happen to share their skin color? After all, the victims of these criminals are overwhelmingly black themselves. Also, black voter turnout has been consistently 5-10% lower than white voter turnout except for the election of Barack Obama, where it was the opposite. That means the impact of felony disenfranchisement at most is about as high as non-participation has been in the past. > Regardless of whether or not you think incarceration of minorities is systemized disenfranchisement... Indeed I don't think so. >... I think any loophole that hypothetically allows the system to chose who may vote is a bigger threat to democracy than an incentive to appeal to criminals. I don't consider it a loophole, becoming a felon is a fairly high bar to getting disenfranchised and the constitution sets some boundaries as to what can be considered a felony. If anything, I would argue that locking someone up for years for selling an ounce of weed is unconstitutional.
      - newen 6y ago
        Given: 1) a system in which either party A or party B win by small margins, and 2) a group of people who votes overwhelmingly for party B. Let's think of options to increase election win probabilities for party A. One option: legislate laws and bring about a justice system in which that group of people are disproportionately imprisoned/fined/etc and made to lose voting rights. Unsurprising result: party A has higher chance of winning elections. Problem: current system incentivizes politicians in party A to enact this option. How to stop this option: give voting rights to everyone including felons.
        jokethrowaway 6y ago
        What's systematic in the justice system that disproportionately imprison a specific group of people? As a black person who has been stopped more often than my white peers because I look like an immigrant (in Europe though), systemic racism is just marketing, there's no systemic racism enshrined in law in any Western society. Sure, some individual may be racist, even if it's hard to say whether someone is racist or he's just afraid of the statistics, which prove some groups indeed harm police officers and other citizens in disproportionately high numbers. Things would be definitely better for everyone (minus the cartels, I guess) if it wasn't for the war on drugs, which makes poor people into criminals. And things would be much better if some groups weren't specifically targeted in the 60s and given benefits that incentivised fatherlessness and broke the family structure. It's a huge topic, so you can look up Thomas Sowell on this.
raxxorrax 6y ago
This is an actual case of billionaires buying votes, even if the system that disallows voting for inmates is kind of archaic.
- birdyrooster 6y ago
  Those inmates can vote for whoever they want and it probably won't be for the guy who wrote the 1994 Crime Bill.
  - ponker 6y ago
    Lol, like more than 2% of these inmates even know what that is.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Any polling to back that up? You'd be surprised
  - morceauxdebois 6y ago
    Yeah, who cares if migrants are having their uteruses removed, the guy isn't woke enough.
    - sassypotato 6y ago
      You do know the uteruses removal thing is fake news right?
      - gmac 6y ago
        Reference which more-or-less backs that up: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-were-mass-hysterectomies-performed-on-detainees-at-a-us-immigration-centre https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-were-mass-...
        HaloZero 6y ago
        the tl;dr of this article seems to indicate that. - There have been surgeries traced back to one facility and one doctor inside a detainment center - There is currently no evidence that this practice is widespread or policy. The fact is it still did happen within an ICE facility but it might be more limited in scope.
Daishiman 6y ago
The original fact that you can't be in debt to vote is quite abhorrent. In other times this would be quite the scandal. Given that right the Florida government is actively engaging in voter suppression though...
- tssva 6y ago
  As a convicted felon in FL you need to have completely full filled the terms of your sentence from the courts in order to have your voting rights restored. This sentence may include the payment of fines or restitution. It is the failure to pay these court ordered payments and therefore completing the terms of their sentence which prevents a convicted felon from being able to vote. General debts do not prevent someone that is or isn't a convicted felon from voting.
  - skinnymuch 6y ago
    This doesn’t make it much (at all?) better to me. It might even make it worse that the explanation should make this any better.
    - yostrovs 6y ago
      As there are rights and privileges, there are also responsibilities. One is to maintain yourself within the bounds of the law. Seems like if you're not willing to take responsibility for your actions then you don't get to tell others what to do through voting.
      - mattzito 6y ago
        Isn't the theoretical point of prison to rehabilitate? We want to take people who have wronged others and get them to take responsibility for their actions and make them productive members of society. Removing voting rights permanently certainly can't increase the engagement of criminals, enough that the voters of florida voted to enfranchise felons.
        6y ago
cjwebb 6y ago
Another site with the story, if you don't want to click on the Daily Mail: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/22/mike-bloomberg-florida-felons-vote-election https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/22/mike-bloombe...
gwicks56 6y ago
Even funnier when you consider he worked out how to game the system and is only paying off the debts of African Americans and Latinos who are registered to vote.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  Funnier yet is that he knows who the convicted felons will be voting for. It's cheaper to pay their debt than to convince law biding citizens to vote for your guy.
chrisco255 6y ago
Florida law on this should be concerning for Bloomberg: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=104.061&URL=0100-0199/0104/Sections/0104.061.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20St... Whoever by bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, attempts to influence, deceive, or deter any elector in voting or interferes with him or her in the free exercise of the elector’s right to vote at any election commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 for the first conviction, and a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, for any subsequent conviction. (2) No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.
- evgen 6y ago
  No, Bloomberg does not have anything to fear from claims of bribery or trying to buy votes. As long as this policy is applied to anyone who applies for it regardless of any stated voting intention. It is not illegal for political parties to provide rides to the voting booth as long as they offer it to anyone who asks and do not try to influence the voter. In this case Bloomberg is making a guess as to the voting intentions of this group, but there is nothing illegal about this guess as long as there is no quid pro quo either stated or implied.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    Isn't this basically the same as offering disabled or infirm people a lift to the polling place? He's spending some money on enabling some people to vote. The difference is that the resource he spends is money, instead of the use of people's time and vehicles.
4gotunameagain 6y ago
Wait. Not only people can buy votes, but people with debts cannot vote?? Yeah, democracy.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  People with oustanding fines and restitution payments can not vote. Private debt has nothing to do with it.
Havoc 6y ago
What a backward requirement
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
>'We know to win Florida we will need to persuade, motivate and add new votes to the Biden column. This means we need to explore all avenues for finding the needed votes when so many votes are already determined,' Bloomberg said >Other donors include John Legend, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, the Miami Dolphins, the Orlando Magic, the Miami Heat Then these people talk about bias.
specialist 6y ago
This is genius. I was wondering how Bloomberg would spend the $100m he committed to Florida. I had never considered reenfranchising ex-felons. Money well spent. The Politico article is more reality-based. https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/09/22/bloomberg-others-rack-up-20m-to-register-florida-felons-after-time-served-1317710 https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/09/22/blo... It's not clear if Bloomberg also paid restitution, money owed to victims, in addition to fines and legal debts. -- One my besties ran our state's version of FL Rights Restitution Coalition. https://floridarrc.com https://floridarrc.com They successfully updated our laws for process to reenfranchise ex-felons, which was widely acknowledged as even worse than Florida (at the time). Even more ridiculous than the fines and legal debts is the bureaucracy. Of the 1,000s of ex-felons who'd squared up every year, less than 20 were able to navigate the red tape to actually restore their right to vote. FWIW, voting rights should never be contingent on fines, debts, restitution. That's flat out unconstitutional, just like poll taxes. Many (most?) states don't even disenfranchise felons. The states that do disenfranchise are whackadoodles.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > Money well spent. Imagine being a black person with college or business debt and you see this billionaire rewarding all these felons. I think I'd be voting Trump, out of spite.
  - non-entity 6y ago
    Not all people are as immature as you.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Not all of them, but 31,001 out of 3 million might be.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      Please refrain from personal attacks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
jokethrowaway 6y ago
This sounds like terrible guerrilla marketing. Biden at the next speech: "if you are voting for trump, you ain't a felon"

44 points by gmac 6y ago

MulliMulli 6y ago

What an absurd voting system.

gridlockd 6y ago
It is not so absurd to have a system that somewhat disincentivizes politicians from pandering to criminals. If those criminals all were KKK members, you probably would be a little more uneasy about them voting.
- ansaso 6y ago
  In reality they aren't KKK members though. Instead they are disproportionately black and other minorities. Regardless of whether or not you think incarceration of minorities is systemized disenfranchisement, I think any loophole that hypothetically allows the system to chose who may vote is a bigger threat to democracy than an incentive to appeal to criminals. Totally agree with your point that incentivizing "pandering to criminals" can be a bad thing though, just the lesser of the two imo.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > Instead they are disproportionately black and other minorities. Disproportionate to what? Their share of the population, or their share of homicides committed? (Using homicide because, unlike other crimes, it's hard to bias the numbers by over-policing. You'll catch more jay-walkers if you assign more police to an area, but you'll get roughly the same number of dead bodies.) > Totally agree with your point that incentivizing "pandering to criminals" can be a bad thing though If so many people are considered criminals that pandering to them is required to win elections, then perhaps it's the legal system that's in the wrong.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > In reality they aren't KKK members though. Instead they are disproportionately black and other minorities. They are overwhelmingly felons. The disenfranchisement rate is highest among blacks at 7.8%, so 92.2% of blacks, so the overwhelming majority, is not affected by this at all. What makes you think the majority of blacks would welcome the enfranchisement of criminals that happen to share their skin color? After all, the victims of these criminals are overwhelmingly black themselves. Also, black voter turnout has been consistently 5-10% lower than white voter turnout except for the election of Barack Obama, where it was the opposite. That means the impact of felony disenfranchisement at most is about as high as non-participation has been in the past. > Regardless of whether or not you think incarceration of minorities is systemized disenfranchisement... Indeed I don't think so. >... I think any loophole that hypothetically allows the system to chose who may vote is a bigger threat to democracy than an incentive to appeal to criminals. I don't consider it a loophole, becoming a felon is a fairly high bar to getting disenfranchised and the constitution sets some boundaries as to what can be considered a felony. If anything, I would argue that locking someone up for years for selling an ounce of weed is unconstitutional.
    - newen 6y ago
      Given: 1) a system in which either party A or party B win by small margins, and 2) a group of people who votes overwhelmingly for party B. Let's think of options to increase election win probabilities for party A. One option: legislate laws and bring about a justice system in which that group of people are disproportionately imprisoned/fined/etc and made to lose voting rights. Unsurprising result: party A has higher chance of winning elections. Problem: current system incentivizes politicians in party A to enact this option. How to stop this option: give voting rights to everyone including felons.
      - jokethrowaway 6y ago
        What's systematic in the justice system that disproportionately imprison a specific group of people? As a black person who has been stopped more often than my white peers because I look like an immigrant (in Europe though), systemic racism is just marketing, there's no systemic racism enshrined in law in any Western society. Sure, some individual may be racist, even if it's hard to say whether someone is racist or he's just afraid of the statistics, which prove some groups indeed harm police officers and other citizens in disproportionately high numbers. Things would be definitely better for everyone (minus the cartels, I guess) if it wasn't for the war on drugs, which makes poor people into criminals. And things would be much better if some groups weren't specifically targeted in the 60s and given benefits that incentivised fatherlessness and broke the family structure. It's a huge topic, so you can look up Thomas Sowell on this.

raxxorrax 6y ago

This is an actual case of billionaires buying votes, even if the system that disallows voting for inmates is kind of archaic.

birdyrooster 6y ago
Those inmates can vote for whoever they want and it probably won't be for the guy who wrote the 1994 Crime Bill.
- ponker 6y ago
  Lol, like more than 2% of these inmates even know what that is.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Any polling to back that up? You'd be surprised
- morceauxdebois 6y ago
  Yeah, who cares if migrants are having their uteruses removed, the guy isn't woke enough.
  - sassypotato 6y ago
    You do know the uteruses removal thing is fake news right?
    - gmac 6y ago
      Reference which more-or-less backs that up: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-were-mass-hysterectomies-performed-on-detainees-at-a-us-immigration-centre https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-were-mass-...
      - HaloZero 6y ago
        the tl;dr of this article seems to indicate that. - There have been surgeries traced back to one facility and one doctor inside a detainment center - There is currently no evidence that this practice is widespread or policy. The fact is it still did happen within an ICE facility but it might be more limited in scope.

Daishiman 6y ago

The original fact that you can't be in debt to vote is quite abhorrent. In other times this would be quite the scandal. Given that right the Florida government is actively engaging in voter suppression though...

tssva 6y ago
As a convicted felon in FL you need to have completely full filled the terms of your sentence from the courts in order to have your voting rights restored. This sentence may include the payment of fines or restitution. It is the failure to pay these court ordered payments and therefore completing the terms of their sentence which prevents a convicted felon from being able to vote. General debts do not prevent someone that is or isn't a convicted felon from voting.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  This doesn’t make it much (at all?) better to me. It might even make it worse that the explanation should make this any better.
  - yostrovs 6y ago
    As there are rights and privileges, there are also responsibilities. One is to maintain yourself within the bounds of the law. Seems like if you're not willing to take responsibility for your actions then you don't get to tell others what to do through voting.
    - mattzito 6y ago
      Isn't the theoretical point of prison to rehabilitate? We want to take people who have wronged others and get them to take responsibility for their actions and make them productive members of society. Removing voting rights permanently certainly can't increase the engagement of criminals, enough that the voters of florida voted to enfranchise felons.
      - 6y ago

cjwebb 6y ago

Another site with the story, if you don't want to click on the Daily Mail: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/22/mike-bloomberg-florida-felons-vote-election https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/22/mike-bloombe...

gwicks56 6y ago

Even funnier when you consider he worked out how to game the system and is only paying off the debts of African Americans and Latinos who are registered to vote.

yostrovs 6y ago
Funnier yet is that he knows who the convicted felons will be voting for. It's cheaper to pay their debt than to convince law biding citizens to vote for your guy.

chrisco255 6y ago

Florida law on this should be concerning for Bloomberg: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=104.061&URL=0100-0199/0104/Sections/0104.061.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20St... Whoever by bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, attempts to influence, deceive, or deter any elector in voting or interferes with him or her in the free exercise of the elector’s right to vote at any election commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 for the first conviction, and a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, for any subsequent conviction. (2) No person shall directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote or to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote. Any person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection shall not apply to the serving of food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting or to any item of nominal value which is used as a political advertisement, including a campaign message designed to be worn by a person.

evgen 6y ago
No, Bloomberg does not have anything to fear from claims of bribery or trying to buy votes. As long as this policy is applied to anyone who applies for it regardless of any stated voting intention. It is not illegal for political parties to provide rides to the voting booth as long as they offer it to anyone who asks and do not try to influence the voter. In this case Bloomberg is making a guess as to the voting intentions of this group, but there is nothing illegal about this guess as long as there is no quid pro quo either stated or implied.
- Arnt 6y ago
  Isn't this basically the same as offering disabled or infirm people a lift to the polling place? He's spending some money on enabling some people to vote. The difference is that the resource he spends is money, instead of the use of people's time and vehicles.

4gotunameagain 6y ago

Wait. Not only people can buy votes, but people with debts cannot vote?? Yeah, democracy.

gridlockd 6y ago
People with oustanding fines and restitution payments can not vote. Private debt has nothing to do with it.

Havoc 6y ago

What a backward requirement

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

>'We know to win Florida we will need to persuade, motivate and add new votes to the Biden column. This means we need to explore all avenues for finding the needed votes when so many votes are already determined,' Bloomberg said >Other donors include John Legend, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, the Miami Dolphins, the Orlando Magic, the Miami Heat Then these people talk about bias.

specialist 6y ago

This is genius. I was wondering how Bloomberg would spend the $100m he committed to Florida. I had never considered reenfranchising ex-felons. Money well spent. The Politico article is more reality-based. https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/09/22/bloomberg-others-rack-up-20m-to-register-florida-felons-after-time-served-1317710 https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/09/22/blo... It's not clear if Bloomberg also paid restitution, money owed to victims, in addition to fines and legal debts. -- One my besties ran our state's version of FL Rights Restitution Coalition. https://floridarrc.com https://floridarrc.com They successfully updated our laws for process to reenfranchise ex-felons, which was widely acknowledged as even worse than Florida (at the time). Even more ridiculous than the fines and legal debts is the bureaucracy. Of the 1,000s of ex-felons who'd squared up every year, less than 20 were able to navigate the red tape to actually restore their right to vote. FWIW, voting rights should never be contingent on fines, debts, restitution. That's flat out unconstitutional, just like poll taxes. Many (most?) states don't even disenfranchise felons. The states that do disenfranchise are whackadoodles.

gridlockd 6y ago
> Money well spent. Imagine being a black person with college or business debt and you see this billionaire rewarding all these felons. I think I'd be voting Trump, out of spite.
- non-entity 6y ago
  Not all people are as immature as you.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Not all of them, but 31,001 out of 3 million might be.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    Please refrain from personal attacks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

jokethrowaway 6y ago

This sounds like terrible guerrilla marketing. Biden at the next speech: "if you are voting for trump, you ain't a felon"