4 ms·

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?
      - skinnymuch 4y ago
        Ah my bad. I meant partisan political causes. I don’t know enough about this to give you a distinction. I can point to the policy. I’d like Citizens United overturned. > Corporations like the Sierra Club? Why not? For partisan causes I don’t think society has space for money to be that powerful. The establishment Dem and Repub parties, politicians, and outside money coming in shouldn’t be able to buy votes and mindshare via ads and marketing that cost tons of money through/with entities.
thinkharderdev 4y ago
Not really. Citizens United was about limits on "soft money". Basically it removed any restrictions on spending by PACs on behalf of a candidate as long as the spending isn't explicitly coordinated with the candidate. Personal vs corporate spending is not really relevant.
- 0110101001 4y ago
  This is incorrect. Citizens United found that the BCRA's ban on corporate independent expenditures was unconstitutional. PACs were not affected by this decision. Super PACs — which I assume you're thinking of — would only become a thing later in the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission decision. SBF has always had the right to spend millions on politics. FTX has not (well, it wouldn't have had it if it existed between 2004 and 2010.)
  - thinkharderdev 4y ago
    Ah, yeah you are right.

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?
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      Ah my bad. I meant partisan political causes. I don’t know enough about this to give you a distinction. I can point to the policy. I’d like Citizens United overturned. > Corporations like the Sierra Club? Why not? For partisan causes I don’t think society has space for money to be that powerful. The establishment Dem and Repub parties, politicians, and outside money coming in shouldn’t be able to buy votes and mindshare via ads and marketing that cost tons of money through/with entities.

thinkharderdev 4y ago

Not really. Citizens United was about limits on "soft money". Basically it removed any restrictions on spending by PACs on behalf of a candidate as long as the spending isn't explicitly coordinated with the candidate. Personal vs corporate spending is not really relevant.

0110101001 4y ago
This is incorrect. Citizens United found that the BCRA's ban on corporate independent expenditures was unconstitutional. PACs were not affected by this decision. Super PACs — which I assume you're thinking of — would only become a thing later in the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission decision. SBF has always had the right to spend millions on politics. FTX has not (well, it wouldn't have had it if it existed between 2004 and 2010.)
- thinkharderdev 4y ago
  Ah, yeah you are right.