What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Big Win For Ted Cruz And Future Corrupt Politicians -- Thanks Supreme Court

Biff_Poindexter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
20,643
Reaction score
10,323
Points
1,265
Location
USA

"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations. The court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

In her dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the majority for ruling against a law that she said was meant to combat "a special danger of corruption" aimed at "political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets. She continued
, "All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor -- by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption -- the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders." The ruling is a further erosion of a 20-year-old law that governs how elections are funded. The Supreme Court already has chipped away at the law, granting corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence candidate elections in its 2010 Citizens United decision."

Lol, the libs are totally triggered....they are all mad that they can now continue their corruption of using their political campaigns as pay for play schemes designed to enrich their pockets -- thankfully, Ted Cruz was brave enough to stand up for what's right -- by now allowing this scheme to be put on steroids...but this ruling is even better....because this ruling actually allows defeated campaigns to continue to accept campaign dollars long after the race has ended.... with no restrictions... while the winning candidate will still be subject to the normal FEC limits....but hey, this will drain the swamp right?


This is also my moment to remind everyone that the only reason Conservatives still praise this pathetic piece of shit -- is because he still has them believing he hates the same people they hate...but if you folks claim to be in favor of campaign finance reform and against corrupt politicians, you are full of shit if you are celebrating this decision....because this decision only makes it worse....

z_gop.0066 (7).jpg
 

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
10,467
Reaction score
17,313
Points
2,430
Location
North Carolina

"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations. The court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

In her dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the majority for ruling against a law that she said was meant to combat "a special danger of corruption" aimed at "political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets. She continued
, "All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor -- by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption -- the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders." The ruling is a further erosion of a 20-year-old law that governs how elections are funded. The Supreme Court already has chipped away at the law, granting corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence candidate elections in its 2010 Citizens United decision."

Lol, the libs are totally triggered....they are all mad that they can now continue their corruption of using their political campaigns as pay for play schemes designed to enrich their pockets -- thankfully, Ted Cruz was brave enough to stand up for what's right -- by now allowing this scheme to be put on steroids...but this ruling is even better....because this ruling actually allows defeated campaigns to continue to accept campaign dollars long after the race has ended.... with no restrictions... while the winning candidate will still be subject to the normal FEC limits....but hey, this will drain the swamp right?


This is also my moment to remind everyone that the only reason Conservatives still praise this pathetic piece of shit -- is because he still has them believing he hates the same people they hate...but if you folks claim to be in favor of campaign finance reform and against corrupt politicians, you are full of shit if you are celebrating this decision....because this decision only makes it worse....

View attachment 645375
Who was the Liberal judge that voted for this supposed corrupt ruling?
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
13,966
Reaction score
11,516
Points
2,250
"a special danger of corruption"

:laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301:


It already exists you dumb bitch!
 

Rambunctious

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
51,499
Reaction score
39,029
Points
3,605
Using campaign funds to repay campaign loans does not sound like corruption to me... Selling access to your politician father and then having him do favors for you does however....
 

1srelluc

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2021
Messages
10,106
Reaction score
13,948
Points
2,268
Location
Shenandoah Valley of Virginia
Other than the hyperbolic presentation.....You are not wrong.

Blah....I feel dirty agreeing with you....I think I'll go flail myself. ;)
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
34,397
Reaction score
10,933
Points
1,400

"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations. The court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

In her dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the majority for ruling against a law that she said was meant to combat "a special danger of corruption" aimed at "political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets. She continued
, "All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor -- by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption -- the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders." The ruling is a further erosion of a 20-year-old law that governs how elections are funded. The Supreme Court already has chipped away at the law, granting corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence candidate elections in its 2010 Citizens United decision."

Lol, the libs are totally triggered....they are all mad that they can now continue their corruption of using their political campaigns as pay for play schemes designed to enrich their pockets -- thankfully, Ted Cruz was brave enough to stand up for what's right -- by now allowing this scheme to be put on steroids...but this ruling is even better....because this ruling actually allows defeated campaigns to continue to accept campaign dollars long after the race has ended.... with no restrictions... while the winning candidate will still be subject to the normal FEC limits....but hey, this will drain the swamp right?


This is also my moment to remind everyone that the only reason Conservatives still praise this pathetic piece of shit -- is because he still has them believing he hates the same people they hate...but if you folks claim to be in favor of campaign finance reform and against corrupt politicians, you are full of shit if you are celebrating this decision....because this decision only makes it worse....

View attachment 645375
Mind readers of the world, unite! I keep telling you guys that those foil helmets don't work, but you keep using them.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
42,531
Reaction score
36,005
Points
3,605
Location
Arizona

Silent Warrior

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
2,840
Reaction score
855
Points
265
Location
Midwest
I think Biff is of the opinion, as much of the left seems to be, that you pocket the excess campaign funds and stiff the lenders.
 

beautress

Always Faithful
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
22,672
Reaction score
14,808
Points
1,445
Location
Walker County, TX

"The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations. The court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

In her dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the majority for ruling against a law that she said was meant to combat "a special danger of corruption" aimed at "political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets. She continued
, "All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor -- by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption -- the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders." The ruling is a further erosion of a 20-year-old law that governs how elections are funded. The Supreme Court already has chipped away at the law, granting corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence candidate elections in its 2010 Citizens United decision."

Lol, the libs are totally triggered....they are all mad that they can now continue their corruption of using their political campaigns as pay for play schemes designed to enrich their pockets -- thankfully, Ted Cruz was brave enough to stand up for what's right -- by now allowing this scheme to be put on steroids...but this ruling is even better....because this ruling actually allows defeated campaigns to continue to accept campaign dollars long after the race has ended.... with no restrictions... while the winning candidate will still be subject to the normal FEC limits....but hey, this will drain the swamp right?


This is also my moment to remind everyone that the only reason Conservatives still praise this pathetic piece of shit -- is because he still has them believing he hates the same people they hate...but if you folks claim to be in favor of campaign finance reform and against corrupt politicians, you are full of shit if you are celebrating this decision....because this decision only makes it worse....

View attachment 645375

Project much?

A very famous lawyer, I think Derschowitz may be his name, made a commentary on Cruz as the best legal mind who ever took his class on the Constitution. I'm not surprised Senator Cruz would win a Supreme Court Case because he knows precisely what the law says and better yet, what that law means. Ted Cruz is first a caring Senator, even if that is equalled by his genius in legal and Constitutional issues. I understand that Professor Dershowitz doesn't miss a beat himself. I like both of them even though they come from different points of view.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$240.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top