4 ms·
What the fuck is Google doing donating to members of Congress in the first place? It should be a crime. It was a crime, until Citizens United. Explain to me ho
by ddevault 6y ago
What the fuck is Google doing donating to members of Congress in the first place? It should be a crime. It was a crime, until Citizens United.
Explain to me how this isn't bribery, plain and simple.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tzs 6y agoCU had nothing to do with donations to members of Congress or to candidates for Congress. The issue in CU was whether or not corporations and unions could pay for ads about candidates within 60 days of an election of 30 days of a primary. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited such things. The Wikipedia article covers this adequately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- ddevault 6y agoQuote from said article: >The ruling had a major impact on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. Later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), would strike down other campaign finance restrictions. CU rolled out the red carpet for corporate interests to install their cronies into office, who then worked to further erode any protections against political bribery - which is exactly what Google is doing in this thread.
- tptacek 6y agoAs 'tzs points out, corporate employee PACs were not unlawful before CU, which, at any rate, had little to do with employee PACs. There were any number of ways you could have learned this, but one obvious way would be to compare the date of the CU decision with the date of the creation of Google NetPAC.