Bloomberg Helping Ex Felons In Florida To Vote

[JakeStarkey]

Then you better get to investigating, bucky, and the law is the law.

 

[flacaltenn]

I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.

Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.

You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..

does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing

You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.

Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.

Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.

And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------

Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.

Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.

There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.

I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.

Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.

It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.

Jonathan Turley - he's that right wing loon who sided with Trump on his impeachment, and also testified against Bill Clinton on his impeachment, arguing that Trump should not be impeached for extortion of a foreign government to his own benefit, but Clinton should be removed from office for his perjury, which had no impact on the American people at all.

The problem is Clinton actually committed perjury, and Trump never extorted anybody.

Not picking on YOU in particular, but I had 108 alerts in my Inbox today -- ALL from this thread -- and I'm NOT exaggerating. Not worth coming in to dig thru that.. So -- PLEASE Y'ALL -- Read the Announcement about "Editing Selectively" and help out here.. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting spammed like this because folks just want to pound the "Reply" button..

 

[lantern2814]

Since Bloomberg is offering something of value in return for votes (for Biden of course), that makes it illegal. It’s called vote buying. Bribery. Whatever you say, it’s still illegal.

 

[Markle]

And they have to already be registered. Let's be honest. I appears he got very sharp legal advice on how to skirt a law that is perfectly reasonable on it's face … I mean who wants someone to pay people to register or vote? But the law was being used in an obnoxious way by the gop to skirt a popularly passed referendum to restore the prividge to people who served their time, so the gop could keep people who were unlikely to vote for them from voting at all.

Have you read the amendment?

Have you read the referendum. Stand down, spanky

It was not a referendum. It is an amendment to our constitution. The courts have reviewed the interpretation and agree with our legislature and not with you.

Text
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

What part of this is not clear to you?

 

[Markle]

So what? The people want felons who complete all requirements to vote. That you disagree, Markle, does not matter: there is not enough who think like you. Floridians know to trust their felons before their Trumpers.

THANK YOU, what part is not clear to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So what? The people want felons who complete all requirements to vote. That you disagree, Markle, does not matter: there is not enough who think like you. Floridians know to trust their felons before their Trumpers.

THANK YOU, what part is not clear to you.

I am glad you changed your mind. If I misjudged you, then I apologize.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And they have to already be registered. Let's be honest. I appears he got very sharp legal advice on how to skirt a law that is perfectly reasonable on it's face … I mean who wants someone to pay people to register or vote? But the law was being used in an obnoxious way by the gop to skirt a popularly passed referendum to restore the prividge to people who served their time, so the gop could keep people who were unlikely to vote for them from voting at all.

Have you read the amendment?

Have you read the referendum. Stand down, spanky

It was not a referendum. It is an amendment to our constitution. The courts have reviewed the interpretation and agree with our legislature and not with you.

Text
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

What part of this is not clear to you?

Good home work. A plus.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

This is how to get around the new Florida scheme to prevent former felons from voting in Florida.

Bloomberg is paying their fines and restitution. He's paying for over 31 thousand ex felons fines so that they can vote in the election this November.

So nearly 32 thousand more people in Florida will be able to vote in November.

I wonder how the governor and the republicans in Florida are going to prevent them from voting now. I'm sure they are working hard to come up with another scheme to take voting rights away from legal voters.

Bloomberg raises millions to help Florida felons vote

Buying votes is ILLEGAL

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How is paying felons' fines buying votes.

They can vote for whomever they waynt.

It's self-explanatory you buffon
1. Just days after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis won a court victory to keep felons from voting until they've paid off fines, restitution and court fees, billionaire Mike Bloomberg has stepped in to help them pay off the debts.
2. Why Florida why not another state you fucking idiot

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.

Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.

You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..

does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing

You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.

Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.

Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.

And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------

Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.

Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.

There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.

I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.

Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.

It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.

Jonathan Turley - he's that right wing loon who sided with Trump on his impeachment, and also testified against Bill Clinton on his impeachment, arguing that Trump should not be impeached for extortion of a foreign government to his own benefit, but Clinton should be removed from office for his perjury, which had no impact on the American people at all.

The problem is Clinton actually committed perjury, and Trump never extorted anybody.

Not picking on YOU in particular, but I had 108 alerts in my Inbox today -- ALL from this thread -- and I'm NOT exaggerating. Not worth coming in to dig thru that.. So -- PLEASE Y'ALL -- Read the Announcement about "Editing Selectively" and help out here.. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting spammed like this because folks just want to pound the "Reply" button..

I'm not following you. Maybe I'm stupid or something. What announcement about editing selectively and where would I find this announcement at? Are you talking about when we edit our own posts?

 

[flacaltenn]

I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.

Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.

You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..

does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing

You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.

Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.

Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.

And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------

Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.

Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.

There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.

I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.

Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.

It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.

Jonathan Turley - he's that right wing loon who sided with Trump on his impeachment, and also testified against Bill Clinton on his impeachment, arguing that Trump should not be impeached for extortion of a foreign government to his own benefit, but Clinton should be removed from office for his perjury, which had no impact on the American people at all.

The problem is Clinton actually committed perjury, and Trump never extorted anybody.

Not picking on YOU in particular, but I had 108 alerts in my Inbox today -- ALL from this thread -- and I'm NOT exaggerating. Not worth coming in to dig thru that.. So -- PLEASE Y'ALL -- Read the Announcement about "Editing Selectively" and help out here.. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting spammed like this because folks just want to pound the "Reply" button..

I'm not following you. Maybe I'm stupid or something. What announcement about editing selectively and where would I find this announcement at? Are you talking about when we edit our own posts?

Again -- wasn' t picking on you.. Trying to get the message out that our expensive Xenforo S/Ware got a bug introduced in the last release and because of Covid -- or because their engineering just sucks -- it's not gotten fixed.. Asking members to help out with a "work-around" if you just use the "Reply Button" and see a mile long string of older quotes show up in the post editor...

Check here -- Asking for some editing behavior changes...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.

Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.

You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..

does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing

You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.

Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.

Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.

And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------

Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.

Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.

There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.

I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.

Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.

It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.

Jonathan Turley - he's that right wing loon who sided with Trump on his impeachment, and also testified against Bill Clinton on his impeachment, arguing that Trump should not be impeached for extortion of a foreign government to his own benefit, but Clinton should be removed from office for his perjury, which had no impact on the American people at all.

The problem is Clinton actually committed perjury, and Trump never extorted anybody.

Not picking on YOU in particular, but I had 108 alerts in my Inbox today -- ALL from this thread -- and I'm NOT exaggerating. Not worth coming in to dig thru that.. So -- PLEASE Y'ALL -- Read the Announcement about "Editing Selectively" and help out here.. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting spammed like this because folks just want to pound the "Reply" button..

I'm not following you. Maybe I'm stupid or something. What announcement about editing selectively and where would I find this announcement at? Are you talking about when we edit our own posts?

Again -- wasn' t picking on you.. Trying to get the message out that our expensive Xenforo S/Ware got a bug introduced in the last release and because of Covid -- or because their engineering just sucks -- it's not gotten fixed.. Asking members to help out with a "work-around" if you just use the "Reply Button" and see a mile long string of older quotes show up in the post editor...

Check here -- Asking for some editing behavior changes...

That's making a little more sense to me so thanks. From what I've read, you say it's better for the system if we just quote the individual parts of the post instead of just hitting the reply button that provides a string of quotes and then replying. Do I have that right? Your first post on this subject mentioned something about editing which I do quite often. I just want to make sure that editing my own posts are not screwing something up for you moderators.

 

[flacaltenn]

I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.

Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.

You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..

does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing

You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.

Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.

Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.

And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------

Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.

Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.

There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.

I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.

Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.

It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.

Jonathan Turley - he's that right wing loon who sided with Trump on his impeachment, and also testified against Bill Clinton on his impeachment, arguing that Trump should not be impeached for extortion of a foreign government to his own benefit, but Clinton should be removed from office for his perjury, which had no impact on the American people at all.

The problem is Clinton actually committed perjury, and Trump never extorted anybody.

Not picking on YOU in particular, but I had 108 alerts in my Inbox today -- ALL from this thread -- and I'm NOT exaggerating. Not worth coming in to dig thru that.. So -- PLEASE Y'ALL -- Read the Announcement about "Editing Selectively" and help out here.. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting spammed like this because folks just want to pound the "Reply" button..

I'm not following you. Maybe I'm stupid or something. What announcement about editing selectively and where would I find this announcement at? Are you talking about when we edit our own posts?

Again -- wasn' t picking on you.. Trying to get the message out that our expensive Xenforo S/Ware got a bug introduced in the last release and because of Covid -- or because their engineering just sucks -- it's not gotten fixed.. Asking members to help out with a "work-around" if you just use the "Reply Button" and see a mile long string of older quotes show up in the post editor...

Check here -- Asking for some editing behavior changes...

That's making a little more sense to me so thanks. From what I've read, you say it's better for the system if we just quote the individual parts of the post instead of just hitting the reply button that provides a string of quotes and then replying. Do I have that right? Your first post on this subject mentioned something about editing which I do quite often. I just want to make sure that editing my own posts are not screwing something up for you moderators.

It actually makes BETTER replies if you break up posts that you are responding to and take them a point at a time in the SAME reply.. It makes for better convos anyways.. If you have problems working with "selective quoting" PM me..

Dont have to do this and avoid the "Reply" all the time.. Understand it's more difficult on mobile and touchscreen.. But when anyone sees that the reply stuff in editing box is getting longer than 8 or 10 posts -- we all have to work to keep it from getting longer than that until there is a fix to the "depth of quote nesting" issue.. Thanks...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.

Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.

You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..

does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing

You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.

Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.

Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.

And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------

Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.

Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.

There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.

I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.

Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.

It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.

Jonathan Turley - he's that right wing loon who sided with Trump on his impeachment, and also testified against Bill Clinton on his impeachment, arguing that Trump should not be impeached for extortion of a foreign government to his own benefit, but Clinton should be removed from office for his perjury, which had no impact on the American people at all.

The problem is Clinton actually committed perjury, and Trump never extorted anybody.

Not picking on YOU in particular, but I had 108 alerts in my Inbox today -- ALL from this thread -- and I'm NOT exaggerating. Not worth coming in to dig thru that.. So -- PLEASE Y'ALL -- Read the Announcement about "Editing Selectively" and help out here.. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting spammed like this because folks just want to pound the "Reply" button..

I'm not following you. Maybe I'm stupid or something. What announcement about editing selectively and where would I find this announcement at? Are you talking about when we edit our own posts?

Again -- wasn' t picking on you.. Trying to get the message out that our expensive Xenforo S/Ware got a bug introduced in the last release and because of Covid -- or because their engineering just sucks -- it's not gotten fixed.. Asking members to help out with a "work-around" if you just use the "Reply Button" and see a mile long string of older quotes show up in the post editor...

Check here -- Asking for some editing behavior changes...

That's making a little more sense to me so thanks. From what I've read, you say it's better for the system if we just quote the individual parts of the post instead of just hitting the reply button that provides a string of quotes and then replying. Do I have that right? Your first post on this subject mentioned something about editing which I do quite often. I just want to make sure that editing my own posts are not screwing something up for you moderators.

It actually makes BETTER replies if you break up posts that you are responding to and take them a point at a time in the SAME reply.. It makes for better convos anyways.. If you have problems working with "selective quoting" PM me..

Dont have to do this and avoid the "Reply" all the time.. Understand it's more difficult on mobile and touchscreen.. But when anyone sees that the reply stuff in editing box is getting longer than 8 or 10 posts -- we all have to work to keep it from getting longer than that until there is a fix to the "depth of quote nesting" issue.. Thanks...

Thank you for explaining it fully to me so I can do whatever possible to make things go more smoothly. But you'll have to forgive me if I forget from time to time. I've been here about five years and just get into a rut of doing things the same way. But I will make a conscience effort to reply to sections or use quotes (which I know how to do).

 

[Lakhota]

This is how to get around the new Florida scheme to prevent former felons from voting in Florida.

Bloomberg is paying their fines and restitution. He's paying for over 31 thousand ex felons fines so that they can vote in the election this November.

So nearly 32 thousand more people in Florida will be able to vote in November.

I wonder how the governor and the republicans in Florida are going to prevent them from voting now. I'm sure they are working hard to come up with another scheme to take voting rights away from legal voters.

Bloomberg raises millions to help Florida felons vote

Sounds great - and legal. Go Bloomberg!

 

[bendog]

And they have to already be registered. Let's be honest. I appears he got very sharp legal advice on how to skirt a law that is perfectly reasonable on it's face … I mean who wants someone to pay people to register or vote? But the law was being used in an obnoxious way by the gop to skirt a popularly passed referendum to restore the prividge to people who served their time, so the gop could keep people who were unlikely to vote for them from voting at all.

Have you read the amendment?

Have you read the referendum. Stand down, spanky

It was not a referendum. It is an amendment to our constitution. The courts have reviewed the interpretation and agree with our legislature and not with you.

Text
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

What part of this is not clear to you?

It was referendum to amdn the const
2018 Florida Amendment 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search

Florida Amendment 4 (2018)
Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative
Location	Florida
Date	November 6, 2018
Results Votes % Yes 5,148,926 64.55% No 2,828,339 35.45% Valid votes 7,977,265 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 7,977,265 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 13,200,872 60.43%
Results by county Yes No

Elections in Florida
Federal government[show] Special elections U.S. House elections U.S. Senate elections Presidential primaries Presidential elections 1848 1852 1856 1860 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Democratic 1920 1928 1932 1936 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Republican 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1944 1946 1950 1952 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 1845 1846 1848 1850 1852 1854 1856 1858 1860 1865 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1972 2000 2002 2004 2006 5th 8th 9th 16th 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 18th district, 1989 13th district, 2014 19th district, 2014
State government[show] Other elections Ballot measures Agriculture Commissioner of Florida Chief Financial Officer elections Attorney General elections Gubernatorial elections General elections 2010 2014 2018 1845 1849 1853 1857 1861 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1954 1956 1960 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2008 Florida Amendment 2 2014 Florida Amendment 2 2016 Florida Amendment 1 2016 Florida Amendment 2 2018 Florida Amendment 4 2006 2010
Fort Lauderdale[show] Mayoral elections 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Hialeah[show] Mayoral elections 2009 2011 2015
Miami[show] Mayoral elections 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017
Miami-Dade County[show] Mayoral elections 2008 2011 2012 2016 2020
North Miami[show] Mayoral elections 2011 2013 2014 (special) 2017
Orange County[show] Mayoral elections 2006 2010 2014 2018
Orlando[show] Mayoral elections 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2003 (special) 2004 2008 2012 2015 2019
St. Petersburg[show] Mayoral elections 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017
Tallahassee[show] Mayoral elections 1997 2003 (special) 2006 2010 2014 2018
Tampa[show] Mayoral elections 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019
Government
v t e

Florida Amendment 4, also the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, is an amendment to the Constitution of Florida passed by ballot initiative on November 6, 2018, as part of the 2018 Florida elections. The proposition restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.[1][2][3][4] The amendment does not apply to Floridians convicted of murder or sexual offenses.
The campaign was sponsored by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition and had support from the American Civil Liberties Union, Christian Coalition of America, and Freedom Partners. Among politicians who took a side on the amendment, several Democrats supported the measure, while some Republicans opposed it. Amendment 4 passed with 64.55% of voters in favor. On January 8, 2019, an estimated 1.4 million ex-felons

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is how to get around the new Florida scheme to prevent former felons from voting in Florida.

Bloomberg is paying their fines and restitution. He's paying for over 31 thousand ex felons fines so that they can vote in the election this November.

So nearly 32 thousand more people in Florida will be able to vote in November.

I wonder how the governor and the republicans in Florida are going to prevent them from voting now. I'm sure they are working hard to come up with another scheme to take voting rights away from legal voters.

Bloomberg raises millions to help Florida felons vote

Sounds great - and legal. Go Bloomberg!

Yep, go Bloomberg. Go to jail.

 

[Markle]

And they have to already be registered. Let's be honest. I appears he got very sharp legal advice on how to skirt a law that is perfectly reasonable on it's face … I mean who wants someone to pay people to register or vote? But the law was being used in an obnoxious way by the gop to skirt a popularly passed referendum to restore the prividge to people who served their time, so the gop could keep people who were unlikely to vote for them from voting at all.

Have you read the amendment?

Have you read the referendum. Stand down, spanky

It was not a referendum. It is an amendment to our constitution. The courts have reviewed the interpretation and agree with our legislature and not with you.

Text
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

What part of this is not clear to you?

It was referendum to amdn the const
2018 Florida Amendment 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search

Florida Amendment 4 (2018)
Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative
Location	Florida
Date	November 6, 2018
Results Votes % Yes 5,148,926 64.55% No 2,828,339 35.45% Valid votes 7,977,265 100.00% Invalid or blank votes 0 0.00% Total votes 7,977,265 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 13,200,872 60.43%
Results by county Yes No

Elections in Florida
Federal government[show] Special elections U.S. House elections U.S. Senate elections Presidential primaries Presidential elections 1848 1852 1856 1860 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Democratic 1920 1928 1932 1936 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Republican 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1944 1946 1950 1952 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 1845 1846 1848 1850 1852 1854 1856 1858 1860 1865 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1972 2000 2002 2004 2006 5th 8th 9th 16th 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 18th district, 1989 13th district, 2014 19th district, 2014
State government[show] Other elections Ballot measures Agriculture Commissioner of Florida Chief Financial Officer elections Attorney General elections Gubernatorial elections General elections 2010 2014 2018 1845 1849 1853 1857 1861 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1954 1956 1960 1964 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2008 Florida Amendment 2 2014 Florida Amendment 2 2016 Florida Amendment 1 2016 Florida Amendment 2 2018 Florida Amendment 4 2006 2010
Fort Lauderdale[show] Mayoral elections 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Hialeah[show] Mayoral elections 2009 2011 2015
Miami[show] Mayoral elections 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017
Miami-Dade County[show] Mayoral elections 2008 2011 2012 2016 2020
North Miami[show] Mayoral elections 2011 2013 2014 (special) 2017
Orange County[show] Mayoral elections 2006 2010 2014 2018
Orlando[show] Mayoral elections 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2003 (special) 2004 2008 2012 2015 2019
St. Petersburg[show] Mayoral elections 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017
Tallahassee[show] Mayoral elections 1997 2003 (special) 2006 2010 2014 2018
Tampa[show] Mayoral elections 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2019
Government
v t e

Florida Amendment 4, also the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, is an amendment to the Constitution of Florida passed by ballot initiative on November 6, 2018, as part of the 2018 Florida elections. The proposition restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.[1][2][3][4] The amendment does not apply to Floridians convicted of murder or sexual offenses.
The campaign was sponsored by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition and had support from the American Civil Liberties Union, Christian Coalition of America, and Freedom Partners. Among politicians who took a side on the amendment, several Democrats supported the measure, while some Republicans opposed it. Amendment 4 passed with 64.55% of voters in favor. On January 8, 2019, an estimated 1.4 million ex-felons

Exactly what was the purpose of this waste of space?

Is this your reasoning?

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!

 

[bripat9643]

I wonder have democrats ever considered that they are just as wrong as people think they are - when their plan to victory involves getting elected by felons.

Obviously felons should not vote. There already are enough democrats who vote just like criminals - not for the benefit of the nation but to buy themselves free shit.

Why, assuming they did their time? The initial big push for felonies (other than the most egregious) to be ineligible for voting was racism. I don't care if they vote, just like I don't care if RWNJ racists vote. It's an American right.

You all for restoring their gun rights also? How about running for political office.. We DO need more professional criminals in politics.

I'm OK with them rejoining society, but it lowers the disincentives for committing crimes.. So MAYBE -- the sentencing and parole procedures need to be tightened to compensate.

It's clear that this story about Bloomberg is correct.. They selected only the "Cheaper pay-outs" -- less than $2000.. And the process is not complete unless the FELON follows thru with a state appeal.. SO -- I'm CERTAIN that the organization that Bloomberg formed has VERBAL maybe physical contact with the recipient to make sure that they follow thru QUICKLY on submitting the paperwork in time for the Nov election. Time's running out in Florida to register.. Don't KNOW the date -- but even if they miss this election, that adds a city size chunk of Dem voters to the rolls. And when the felon ASKS where the money comes from -- Bloomberg craftily added a funding arm with prime sports/entertainment figures covering his money.. A bit like laundering the "quo"...

But it would only take ONE of these beneficiaries to rat them out and MAKE it completely illegal if they were TOLD that prominent Democrats were SOLELY behind the efforts "to help them vote"... But the rest of us KNOW -- this is already obvious. Sorry you dont get it..

does not seem illegal to me------take a felon to lunch kinda thing

You can take a felon to lunch-----but if you take him to lunch so he will vote for your candidate and especially if you are dumb enough to admit it---then you get to go to prison. Bloomberg has been in NY to long---he thinks he is above the law and can buy votes----Florida isn't New York

And you and everyone else should know deep down inside that buying votes is illegal and immoral.

I don't think anyone is under any illusions that Bloomberg is particularly moral, but you guys have a ways to go to prove he is "buying" votes. So far - your arguements could apply to anyone who donates to this group and hopes they will vote a certain way afterwards.

Who needs to prove it, he wrote about it.

Can you show me where he wrote that he is donating this money with the contingency that the recipients must vote for Biden? If he did that, then yes, he royally screwed himself.

And why are we going down this rabbit hole....................contingency or not makes no different...he admitted that he was donating the money in order to buy votes from felons who expected to net him around 30000 votes in florida basically....this is a FELONY in Florida. And btw under rico conspiracy charges when one is guilty all are--------so now we got Bloomberg and all of those other racist dem thugs like LeBron James...the only thing that may save them is that I dont think they actually gave out any of the money yet-----------

Anyone can pay fines and fees for anyone.

Nothing illegal. Quite noble of Mayor Mike, in fact.

Not when you are doing it to buy votes---then it becomes a felony.

You can DONATE money - but regardless of what he says, it isn't a felony unless it can be shown that there was a quid pro quo attached to the money. And, an investigation might well turn that up but as of now I don't see strings attached saying you get the money only if you vote for xyz.

There doesn't have to be a quid pro quo. The intent of giving the money was to influence the person TO vote regardless of how they do. That's the way the law is written.

I *think* you are wrong about that. that means someone, renting a bus, to drive people to the polls to vote is breaking the law.

Amazingly, the fla law actually exempts that

104.012 Consideration for registration; interference with registration; soliciting registrations for compensation; alteration of registration application.—
(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. This section shall not be interpreted, however, to exclude such services as transportation to the place of registration or baby-sitting in connection with the absence of an elector from home for registering.

However it does not exempt paying for someone's fines in an attempt to get them to vote for democrat.

Bloomberg is in big trouble.

It states this though: Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash

So does it meet that?

Jonathan Turley gave a good analysis here: Did Bloomberg Commit A Crime In Paying Off The Debts Of Black and Hispanic Former Felons To Allow Them To Vote?

Section 1 refers to “bribery, menace, threat, or other corruption whatsoever, either directly or indirectly” as the means for influencing the votes. Paying the debt of former felons is a lawful action and would not satisfy any of those criteria. “Corruption” is not a colloquial but a legal term. It must refer to a clear nexus of securing unlawful derived benefits. The term is most often used in public corruption cases, but the Supreme Court has routinely rejected broad interpretations of this term (something that I discussed in the Trump impeachment). See McNally v. United States, Skilling v. United States, McCormick v. United States, and McDonnell v. United States.

That leaves Section 2. That provision can be broken into two parts. First, there is the language “directly or indirectly give or promise anything of value to another intending thereby to buy that person’s or another’s vote.” Bloomberg is not securing a commitment of how these individuals would vote. It is true that they are assuming that Black and Hispanic ex-felons will vote for Biden but, unless Bloomberg or the Florida Rights and Restoration Coalition have expressly made such a quid pro quo with the beneficiaries, there is no purchase of a vote.

The second part of that provision allows a charge for any effort “to corruptly influence that person or another in casting his or her vote.” This language however is narrowly construed in criminal cases. It is not a “corrupt” purpose to clear the way for voting.

The memo (and the racial exclusion of other beneficiaries) does make these determinations more difficult since it undermines the public claim that Bloomberg was simply trying to restoring voting rights. However, they would need something more concrete to establish a corrupt purpose or a quid pro quo.

Of course, the racial exclusion of other votes and the memo could justify a criminal investigation shortly before the election. That would allow Florida investigators to seize material and interview staff members. Even if a basis for a criminal charge is not found, the memo destroys the high ground for Bloomberg in defending the right to vote for some, but not all, former felons.

That's ludicrous interpretation of the law. Obviously buying someone a Mercedes while not redeemable in cash directly, is still illegal. Thousands in direct cash is obviously illegal.

Jonathan Turley - he's that right wing loon who sided with Trump on his impeachment, and also testified against Bill Clinton on his impeachment, arguing that Trump should not be impeached for extortion of a foreign government to his own benefit, but Clinton should be removed from office for his perjury, which had no impact on the American people at all.

The problem is Clinton actually committed perjury, and Trump never extorted anybody.

Not picking on YOU in particular, but I had 108 alerts in my Inbox today -- ALL from this thread -- and I'm NOT exaggerating. Not worth coming in to dig thru that.. So -- PLEASE Y'ALL -- Read the Announcement about "Editing Selectively" and help out here.. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's getting spammed like this because folks just want to pound the "Reply" button..

I'm not following you. Maybe I'm stupid or something. What announcement about editing selectively and where would I find this announcement at? Are you talking about when we edit our own posts?

Again -- wasn' t picking on you.. Trying to get the message out that our expensive Xenforo S/Ware got a bug introduced in the last release and because of Covid -- or because their engineering just sucks -- it's not gotten fixed.. Asking members to help out with a "work-around" if you just use the "Reply Button" and see a mile long string of older quotes show up in the post editor...

Check here -- Asking for some editing behavior changes...

That's making a little more sense to me so thanks. From what I've read, you say it's better for the system if we just quote the individual parts of the post instead of just hitting the reply button that provides a string of quotes and then replying. Do I have that right? Your first post on this subject mentioned something about editing which I do quite often. I just want to make sure that editing my own posts are not screwing something up for you moderators.

You can edit the post history and get rid of most of it.

 

[bripat9643]

This is how to get around the new Florida scheme to prevent former felons from voting in Florida.

Bloomberg is paying their fines and restitution. He's paying for over 31 thousand ex felons fines so that they can vote in the election this November.

So nearly 32 thousand more people in Florida will be able to vote in November.

I wonder how the governor and the republicans in Florida are going to prevent them from voting now. I'm sure they are working hard to come up with another scheme to take voting rights away from legal voters.

Bloomberg raises millions to help Florida felons vote

Sounds great - and legal. Go Bloomberg!

It's not legal. It's a crime. You can't pay people to vote, period.