5 ms·

Crazy on how little attention gets placed on Citizens United when this comes up. It seems like Americans would prefer the status quo of the political machine.

isthisthingon99 4y ago
Come on. The corporate media chooses what gets reported on.
- JackFr 4y ago
  My gut feeling is that media (and other) figures are still figuring out how to deal with the cognitive dissonance between their self-perceived intelligence and the fact that the whole crypto-space is a gigantic freaking scam — which has been quite evident to many for years.
  - isthisthingon99 4y ago
    Being more cynical... They knew it, and their plan was to hope the public signs on in a big way. They did not.
- coolbreezetft22 4y ago
  This seems very widely reported in the media, it was the feature story in The Economist this week and had multiple articles in it. Didn't a lot of other new revelations on this come out of reporting by Financial Times and Vox as well? It's also being investigated by the SEC and DoJ.
  - isthisthingon99 4y ago
    I was responding to the citizens united statement, not the article. Citizens United literally means money talks. The only alternative is publicly funded campaigns. Which is fine by me. But people will game that system. Might as well make it legal.
zajio1am 4y ago
Citizens United is irrelevant to these donations, as they were done personally by Sam Bankman-Fried and others, not by FTX.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Wasn’t citizens United about how much money can be donated too? So it’s relevant, no?
  - twoodfin 4y ago
    No, it was about whether Congress has the power to regulate independent political spending, specifically within the BCRA’s prescribed 30 and 60 day pre-election windows. Per Citizens United, it does not.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC To most readers, wiki’s page about it appears to not paint the same picture you’re describing. Here’s the initial synopsis: “It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.” Corporations and other associations shouldn’t be allowed to donate any money for political ads or political causes. My initial question was if the Citizens United case limits donations. It does by giving unlimited political spending power to most legal entities.
      - twoodfin 4y ago
        What distinction are you drawing between my “independent political spending” and Wikipedia’s “independent expenditures for political campaigns”? Corporations and other associations shouldn’t be allowed to donate any money for political ads or political causes. Corporations like the Sierra Club? Why not?
fallingknife 4y ago
Citizens United was the right decision. Banning political campaigning by private entities just gives more power to entrenched political parties. And it's fundamentally unfair that I can't start a PAC and campaign my political goals, but the RNC and the DNC are given a free hand. Also, why can't a billionaire start a PAC and run campaign adds, but he can start a TV network and run propaganda? So, ban that too, you say. But that violates freedom of the press, which I assume you don't want to get rid of. Everybody must be allowed to campaign, because the alternative is having politicians decide who can and who can't, and they will never do this in a way that doesn't entrench their own power.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Banning political campaigning by private entities No one did that. > And it's fundamentally unfair that I can't start a PAC and campaign my political goals, but the RNC and the DNC are given a free hand. They aren't. Donations to them are limited, too. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-political-party/contributions-made-party-committees/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-di...

isthisthingon99 4y ago

Come on. The corporate media chooses what gets reported on.

JackFr 4y ago
My gut feeling is that media (and other) figures are still figuring out how to deal with the cognitive dissonance between their self-perceived intelligence and the fact that the whole crypto-space is a gigantic freaking scam — which has been quite evident to many for years.
- isthisthingon99 4y ago
  Being more cynical... They knew it, and their plan was to hope the public signs on in a big way. They did not.
coolbreezetft22 4y ago
This seems very widely reported in the media, it was the feature story in The Economist this week and had multiple articles in it. Didn't a lot of other new revelations on this come out of reporting by Financial Times and Vox as well? It's also being investigated by the SEC and DoJ.
- isthisthingon99 4y ago
  I was responding to the citizens united statement, not the article. Citizens United literally means money talks. The only alternative is publicly funded campaigns. Which is fine by me. But people will game that system. Might as well make it legal.

zajio1am 4y ago

Citizens United is irrelevant to these donations, as they were done personally by Sam Bankman-Fried and others, not by FTX.

skinnymuch 4y ago
Wasn’t citizens United about how much money can be donated too? So it’s relevant, no?
- twoodfin 4y ago
  No, it was about whether Congress has the power to regulate independent political spending, specifically within the BCRA’s prescribed 30 and 60 day pre-election windows. Per Citizens United, it does not.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC To most readers, wiki’s page about it appears to not paint the same picture you’re describing. Here’s the initial synopsis: “It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.” Corporations and other associations shouldn’t be allowed to donate any money for political ads or political causes. My initial question was if the Citizens United case limits donations. It does by giving unlimited political spending power to most legal entities.
    - twoodfin 4y ago
      What distinction are you drawing between my “independent political spending” and Wikipedia’s “independent expenditures for political campaigns”? Corporations and other associations shouldn’t be allowed to donate any money for political ads or political causes. Corporations like the Sierra Club? Why not?

fallingknife 4y ago

Citizens United was the right decision. Banning political campaigning by private entities just gives more power to entrenched political parties. And it's fundamentally unfair that I can't start a PAC and campaign my political goals, but the RNC and the DNC are given a free hand. Also, why can't a billionaire start a PAC and run campaign adds, but he can start a TV network and run propaganda? So, ban that too, you say. But that violates freedom of the press, which I assume you don't want to get rid of. Everybody must be allowed to campaign, because the alternative is having politicians decide who can and who can't, and they will never do this in a way that doesn't entrench their own power.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Banning political campaigning by private entities No one did that. > And it's fundamentally unfair that I can't start a PAC and campaign my political goals, but the RNC and the DNC are given a free hand. They aren't. Donations to them are limited, too. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-political-party/contributions-made-party-committees/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-di...