3 ms·
SCOTUS takes their existing prejudices and filters them through the Constitution like a sieve, refusing to consider consequences in a mad form of Rule Deontolog
by rob05c 13y ago
SCOTUS takes their existing prejudices and filters them through the Constitution like a sieve, refusing to consider consequences in a mad form of Rule Deontology.
I don't care what the Constitution says. The constitutional provisions for petitioning and free speech have turned into bribery. Bribery is wrong. If the Constitution says otherwise, the Constitution is wrong.
- Amadou 13y agoI really like Lawrence Lessig's proposal. It is a "hack" of the Citizen's United ruling along the lines of how copyleft is a hack of copyright law. In essence, he proposes that all campaign donations go into a "black box" and are secretly reversible. So you can write a check to your politician's PAC, hand it directly to him but he must deposit the funds into the black box. Then you can secretly get some or all of your money back - the politician can't tell who reneged on their donation. Lessig's approach does not in any way restrict how much you can give to a politician - there is no "censorship" in mandating that political donations go into a black box - the campaign can still see that you made the donation - they still "hear" your speech. Nor are you forced to keep it a secret if you reneg, you are free to tell the politician you took back your money if you really want him to know that. Reportedly something like the above was tried on a small scale, an election for Miami or south Florida, judges. Apparently the result was that all of the campaigns netted exactly zero dollars in donations when all was said and done.