3 ms·

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Supe... Practically speaking, as lon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Supe... Practically speaking, as long as some needed transparency is in place, is there much of a real difference to how things are currently run? Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized?

giarc 13y ago
I think as the NYT article states, it will likely funnel some money away from the super-PACs. This just brings the donor and the candidate closer together. People like Sheldon Adelson will still continue to contribute huge sums of money to candidates, he'll just be able to do it directly now.
twoodfin 13y ago
Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized? I don't think it's particularly polarized. If Antonin Scalia is your benchmark for a "polarizing" figure, the # of 5-4 cases where he was in the majority appear to have been trending downward: http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisOverview.php?sid=1301-TICTAC-7244 http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisOverview.php?sid=1301-TICTAC-7...
frankchn 13y ago
We hear about the 5-4 decisions because they are often the most controversial ones and ones that the media will report on. Based on last year's statistics (http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agreement_OT12.pdf http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agreement_O...), even between the two Justices who disagree with each other the most (Ginsburg and Alito), they agree on the same judgment in 58% of cases.
cwal37 13y ago
It really just means an individual can donate to a lot more individual campaigns now, as the aggregate limit has been struck down. I doubt this will increase any transparency, as current rules are barely enforced to begin with, and the real money is coming from PACs. I threw this together a couple years ago to demonstrate how a foreign company, if they wished, could donate funds which in the eyes of the law would be "untraceable" (even if it really is obvious). http://i.imgur.com/Hjp1b.gif http://i.imgur.com/Hjp1b.gif It also just shows how quickly money gets "disguised". I should have put something in there about limits, but I forgot at the time.
smackfu 13y ago
>Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. I believe this is actually the first 5-4 decision in the current term, which has been going since October: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supre... There have been a lot of 9-0 decisions, and several 6-3.
- cobrausn 13y ago
  Good to hear. I must have imprinted that opinion from some scaremongering headlines earlier. Doing a search for 'Supreme Court 5 4' or similar yields a lot of spin.
- mason240 13y ago
  I'm guessing that 5-4 decisions tend to be more polarizing to the public as well, generating more news, while 9-0 decisions The more controversial tend to be more mundane, generating little attention.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    And a lot of Supreme Court decisions don't even make the news, because they are deciding small bits of law that don't affect many people. Like the other case decided today was about whether an airline could terminate someone's membership in a frequent flyer program. The law was unclear, so the SCOTUS ruled on it, but it's not something that means anything to most people.
briandh 13y ago
The percentage of 5-4 decisions being handed down is practically meaningless without relating it to how controversial or "hard" the questions being decided are. That of course, is fundamentally hard to quantify, although you may make some headway by dividing up decisions based on whether there were circuit splits, how (in)consistent the decisions of lower courts that evaluated the case were, the splits for the lower courts, etc. Moreover, cases often address multiple questions and a 5-4 decision can be handed down even when many or most of the questions answered were subject unanimous or nearly unanimous agreement. By the same token, a unanimous or near-unanimous decision could have been reached in spite of radically diverging rationales from the various justices.

giarc 13y ago

I think as the NYT article states, it will likely funnel some money away from the super-PACs. This just brings the donor and the candidate closer together. People like Sheldon Adelson will still continue to contribute huge sums of money to candidates, he'll just be able to do it directly now.

twoodfin 13y ago

Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized? I don't think it's particularly polarized. If Antonin Scalia is your benchmark for a "polarizing" figure, the # of 5-4 cases where he was in the majority appear to have been trending downward: http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisOverview.php?sid=1301-TICTAC-7244 http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisOverview.php?sid=1301-TICTAC-7...

frankchn 13y ago

We hear about the 5-4 decisions because they are often the most controversial ones and ones that the media will report on. Based on last year's statistics (http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agreement_OT12.pdf http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agreement_O...), even between the two Justices who disagree with each other the most (Ginsburg and Alito), they agree on the same judgment in 58% of cases.

cwal37 13y ago

It really just means an individual can donate to a lot more individual campaigns now, as the aggregate limit has been struck down. I doubt this will increase any transparency, as current rules are barely enforced to begin with, and the real money is coming from PACs. I threw this together a couple years ago to demonstrate how a foreign company, if they wished, could donate funds which in the eyes of the law would be "untraceable" (even if it really is obvious). http://i.imgur.com/Hjp1b.gif http://i.imgur.com/Hjp1b.gif It also just shows how quickly money gets "disguised". I should have put something in there about limits, but I forgot at the time.

smackfu 13y ago

>Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. I believe this is actually the first 5-4 decision in the current term, which has been going since October: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supre... There have been a lot of 9-0 decisions, and several 6-3.

cobrausn 13y ago
Good to hear. I must have imprinted that opinion from some scaremongering headlines earlier. Doing a search for 'Supreme Court 5 4' or similar yields a lot of spin.
mason240 13y ago
I'm guessing that 5-4 decisions tend to be more polarizing to the public as well, generating more news, while 9-0 decisions The more controversial tend to be more mundane, generating little attention.
- smackfu 13y ago
  And a lot of Supreme Court decisions don't even make the news, because they are deciding small bits of law that don't affect many people. Like the other case decided today was about whether an airline could terminate someone's membership in a frequent flyer program. The law was unclear, so the SCOTUS ruled on it, but it's not something that means anything to most people.

briandh 13y ago

The percentage of 5-4 decisions being handed down is practically meaningless without relating it to how controversial or "hard" the questions being decided are. That of course, is fundamentally hard to quantify, although you may make some headway by dividing up decisions based on whether there were circuit splits, how (in)consistent the decisions of lower courts that evaluated the case were, the splits for the lower courts, etc. Moreover, cases often address multiple questions and a 5-4 decision can be handed down even when many or most of the questions answered were subject unanimous or nearly unanimous agreement. By the same token, a unanimous or near-unanimous decision could have been reached in spite of radically diverging rationales from the various justices.