7 ms·

Should have channeled the gifts through non-profits: George Soros-funded DAs represent 20% of Americans after $40M was funneled into races - https://www.foxnew

Should have channeled the gifts through non-profits: George Soros-funded DAs represent 20% of Americans after $40M was funneled into races - https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-soros-funded-das-represent-20-americans-40m-funneled-races-report-finds https://www.foxnews.com/media/george-soros-funded-das-repres...

ceejayoz 3y ago
I would encourage the court to religitate Citizens United to fix this. In current law, though, it's entirely acceptable for organizations like Soros's to donate to political campaigns. If Soros starts sending DAs on free fishing trips on a private jet, then it becomes comparable.
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago
  > In current law, though, it's entirely acceptable You mean legal.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Sure. I didn't say "in current moral philosophy", I said "in current law". The context is clear, and I suspect it was entirely clear to you.
    - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
      There's no shortage of people conflating "legal" with "ethical", so invoking the law to claim something is "acceptable" can easily be understood as claiming it is morally acceptable because it is legal. Especially when one can use the unambiguous and concise "legal" instead of the vague and plodding "In current law, though, it's entirely acceptable". Edit: You focus on legality to the exclusion of all else, while I care more about ethics and undue influence. Yes, the two cases are not identical. That does not mean they're not at least equally problematic.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        While you're complaining about people conflating things, scroll up to where... someone conflates illegal undisclosed personal gifts with legal disclosed campaign donations.
jwalgenbach 3y ago
Campaign donations are not personal gifts, and regulated by election laws. This is a false equivalency and at best whataboutism. This is not to say Citizen's United shouldn't be repealed and campaign contributions much more tightly regulated. But it ain't the same.
- ksniwmidjd 3y ago
  [dead]

ceejayoz 3y ago

I would encourage the court to religitate Citizens United to fix this. In current law, though, it's entirely acceptable for organizations like Soros's to donate to political campaigns. If Soros starts sending DAs on free fishing trips on a private jet, then it becomes comparable.

NoRelToEmber 3y ago
> In current law, though, it's entirely acceptable You mean legal.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Sure. I didn't say "in current moral philosophy", I said "in current law". The context is clear, and I suspect it was entirely clear to you.
  - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
    There's no shortage of people conflating "legal" with "ethical", so invoking the law to claim something is "acceptable" can easily be understood as claiming it is morally acceptable because it is legal. Especially when one can use the unambiguous and concise "legal" instead of the vague and plodding "In current law, though, it's entirely acceptable". Edit: You focus on legality to the exclusion of all else, while I care more about ethics and undue influence. Yes, the two cases are not identical. That does not mean they're not at least equally problematic.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      While you're complaining about people conflating things, scroll up to where... someone conflates illegal undisclosed personal gifts with legal disclosed campaign donations.

jwalgenbach 3y ago

Campaign donations are not personal gifts, and regulated by election laws. This is a false equivalency and at best whataboutism. This is not to say Citizen's United shouldn't be repealed and campaign contributions much more tightly regulated. But it ain't the same.

ksniwmidjd 3y ago
[dead]