The Supreme Court Slaps California Dems in the Face

[score_keeper]

It's another victory against the fascist-like control that the democrats crave over the citizens of the United States.

Supreme Court says California rule requiring nonprofits to reveal donor names is unconstitutional

 

[HisArpy]

Compelled speech, in spite of what Sotomayor & Co may want to believe, has always been unconstitutional. Especially when the compelled speech is to be used against the one speaking.

 

[pecksniff]

There is no good reason why anybody should be able to donate money to any political cause and keep that secret.

 

[ll74]

The biggest takewaway from today was the partisan split.

This really demonstrates, based on this year's docket, where each feel the lines are drawn.

 

[Earthlyone]

There is no good reason why anybody should be able to donate money to any political cause and keep that secret.

Some scary insight into how your mind works there.

 

[pecksniff]

Some scary insight into how your mind works there.

We would have a better democracy if nobody could influence political outcomes by spending money. That's a form of corruption ipso facto. And, no, money is not speech.

 

[HisArpy]

There is no good reason why anybody should be able to donate money to any political cause and keep that secret.

The 4th Amendment to that pesky US Constitution thing says otherwise.

 

[HisArpy]

We would have a better democracy if nobody could influence political outcomes by spending money. That's a form of corruption ipso facto. And, no, money is not speech.

At best, your idea would result in nothing more than "maybe we would" and even that is doubtful. What I find troubling is that those who espouse getting rid of all political contributions, are the same ones whose political candidates wholeheartedly accept political contributions and then wind up doing deals with the devil on behalf of those same political contributors. Not that this is anything new, but it just seems so disingenuous.

Money itself isn't speech. The giving of money to a political, private, or charitable cause is. There's a very long line of historical precedent on that.

 

[CornusKousa]

There is no good reason why anybody should be able to donate money to any political cause and keep that secret.

Sure there is, it's called privacy.

We would have a better democracy if nobody could influence political outcomes by spending money. That's a form of corruption ipso facto. And, no, money is not speech.

Yes it is, it's the most powerful speech there is.

The 4th Amendment to that pesky US Constitution thing says otherwise.

They fucking hate the USA

 

[ll74]

I will say this - saying that a state can't regulate how it regulates tax exemption status is an interesting conservative take on things

 

[HisArpy]

I will say this - saying that a state can't regulate how it regulates tax exemption status is an interesting conservative take on things

Tax exemption status is a Federal thing (IRS) , not a State thing. States have zero ability to "regulate" it.

That you seem to think that conservatives are more "States' Rights" when it comes to income taxes and tax status is interesting since the 17th Amendment says that it's the province of the Federal Gov and not that of the States.

In any event, this wasn't about "tax exemption status", it was about compelled speech.

 

[CornusKousa]

I will say this - saying that a state can't regulate how it regulates tax exemption status is an interesting conservative take on things

Not really, states can regulate, but they can't do so in violation of the Constitution.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes it is, it's the most powerful speech there is.

Imagine a world where no one, either candidate or donor or political party or PAC, could spend money on behalf of their candidate's election campaign.

How would they have TV/radio/internet commercials, campaign buttons, banners, flyers, rallies, or anything at all?

The media can't "give" them anything either because it would be "in kind" contributions and therefore "illegal."

So, without campaign contributions or spending, you get bozo's running for office that no one knows where they stand on the issues because they can't tell the voters anything. Because EVERYTHING costs money and that money has to come from somewhere.

 

[ll74]

Tax exemption status is a Federal thing (IRS) , not a State thing. States have zero ability to "regulate" it.

That you seem to think that conservatives are more "States' Rights" when it comes to income taxes and tax status is interesting since the 17th Amendment says that it's the province of the Federal Gov and not that of the States.

In any event, this wasn't about "tax exemption status", it was about compelled speech.

When did states stop taxing people?

 

[ll74]

Not really, states can regulate, but they can't do so in violation of the Constitution.

I certainly need to dig into the ruling, but a state should be able to dictate what is considered non-profit at the state level and the requirements of that.

 

[HisArpy]

When did states stop taxing people?

So, we've gone from "compelled speech" to "tax exemption status" to "State taxation" in one thread.

You're really working hard to find something/anything to hang your outrage on here.

 

[ll74]

So, we've gone from "compelled speech" to "tax exemption status" to "State taxation" in one thread.

You're really working hard to find something/anything to hang your outrage on here.

I have no idea where "we've" gone.

I'm not actually outraged. I'm just interested in how they ruled and why

 

[Rightguide]

There is no good reason why anybody should be able to donate money to any political cause and keep that secret.

At least not under Soviet rule.

 

[Rightguide]

I will say this - saying that a state can't regulate how it regulates tax exemption status is an interesting conservative take on things

Not really it's just a simple acknowledgement that a state has to operate within the parameters of the Constitution, the document that founded it.

 

[Rightguide]

When did states stop taxing people?

In San Jose they just taxed your Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Let's see where that goes.

 

[HisArpy]

I have no idea where "we've" gone.

I'm not actually outraged. I'm just interested in how they ruled and why

Then you should read the decision instead of spouting off on stuff you know nothing about.

 

[CornusKousa]

Imagine a world where no one, either candidate or donor or political party or PAC, could spend money on behalf of their candidate's election campaign.

How would they have TV/radio/internet commercials, campaign buttons, banners, flyers, rallies, or anything at all?

The media can't "give" them anything either because it would be "in kind" contributions and therefore "illegal."

The government would control all of it, which is what authoritarians like Peck want.

So, without campaign contributions or spending, you get bozo's running for office that no one knows where they stand on the issues because they can't tell the voters anything. Because EVERYTHING costs money and that money has to come from somewhere.

Exactly what (D)'s want.

I certainly need to dig into the ruling, but a state should be able to dictate what is considered non-profit at the state level and the requirements of that.

AFAIK, with reguard to state taxes, they can.

But not for federal or in violation of peoples Constitutionally protected rights.

 

[HisArpy]

In San Jose they just taxed your Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Let's see where that goes.

Down the toilet. It's literally a poll tax on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ll74]

Then you should read the decision instead of spouting off on stuff you know nothing about.

lol, aren't you a pleasant person.

 

[CornusKousa]

In San Jose they just taxed your Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Let's see where that goes.

(D)'eez and their jurisdictions just crank out violation after violation of peoples civil rights, seeing what they can get to stick.

Or just clogging the courts up so they can proceed to just do whatever the fuck they want.

Power hungry thugs.