4 ms·
Perhaps banning recurring donations is the better idea*?. I can sit here for five minutes and think up several ways to achieve the exact same thing some arbitr
by tenfourwookie 5y ago
Perhaps banning recurring donations is the better idea*?.
I can sit here for five minutes and think up several ways to achieve the exact same thing some arbitrary UI element (prechecked checkbox) achieves. Don't even need a checkbox. Just change the terms.
*Ooops. Forgot Citizens United. Poop!*
- ashtonkem 5y agoI don’t think banning recurring donations would breach citizens United, but I’m not a lawyer. To my understanding, Citizens United controls what you can do with your money. It does not cover what arrangements campaigns can have to charge you money. You can set a reminder to donate monthly if you want, but that doesn’t mean that PACs can necessarily charge you monthly, in my opinion. Similarly, the courts have held that the FEC can’t control what candidates say, which is good. But the FEC can force political adverts to make it clear who paid for it, which is also good.
- dragonwriter 5y agoCU has nothing to so with donation rules for campaign committees; like Buckley v. Valeo before it, it deals with independent expenditures by entities which are not and do not coordinate with campaign committees.
- tenfourwookie 5y agoToo wonk. Please simplify.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Too wonk. Please simplify. Buckley v. Valeo: “you can spend your own money without limit on political ads, if you aren't coordinating with a campaign”. Citizens United: “...and that includes if ‘you’ are a corporation, not an individual.” Neither restricts the ability of the federal government to restrict spending by or coordinated with campaigns, or donations to campaigns.
- tenfourwookie 5y agoThank you.
- rtkwe 5y agoCan we not pretend that laws have to use the most surface level definition of things? It’s a silly straw man attack and isn’t how laws are (usually) written.