https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/politics/supreme-court-campaign-funds-ted-cruz/index.htmlKagan's dissent is just brutally stupid. She's a supreme court justice, and she is making an argument that doesn't withstand basic logical scrutiny;
Quote
A candidate for public office extends a $500,000 loan to his campaign organization, hoping to recoup the amount from benefactors’ post-election contributions. Once elected, he devotes himself assiduously to recovering the money; his personal bank account, after all, now has a gaping half-million-dollar hole. The politician solicits donations from wealthy individuals and corporate lobbyists, making clear that the money they give will go straight from the campaign to him, as repayment for his loan. He is deeply grateful to those who help, as they know he will be—more grateful than for ordinary campaign contributions (which do not increase his personal wealth). And as they paid him, so he will pay them. In the coming months and years, they receive government benefits—maybe favorable legislation, maybe prized appointments, maybe lucrative contracts. The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption.
How the everloving fuck is it any different for a candidate to loan their campaign $500k, then solicit $500k in donations to offset it, then it is for a candidate to solicit $500k in political donations?
Explain that.
It makes zero sense at face value. If your argument is that money and politics inevitably results in corruption, then you must be against all forms of political campaign donation, not just one by post-election contributions. There are already laws to punish bribery or the taking of funds for personal use, but there's no difference when funds go from A->B->C than from A->C. The same logic as why it should have been illegal for Hillary Clinton to circumvent the maximum campaign donation limit by having political donors contribute the maximum to 33 state parties and then immediately redirect it to her national funds, a blatant straw donor scheme. But by that same token, there's no more corruption by having legal donations pre-campaign than post-campaign to offset debt.
I mean her entire argument is hinged on denying basic economics and the purpose of debt. She argues that "
The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities. All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor". So any money my job pays me that goes to paying a mortgage is just personally enriching me and does nothing to aid in me owning a home. Likewise, it makes this completely arbitrary and nonsensical distinction between bribing a candidate prior to an election and after an election. What, are politicians supposed to have the intelligence of a goldfish? Do they stop remembering their patrons the moment they are elected? Someone who contributes $500k to a candidate on monday is not magically less important than someone who contributes $500k on wednesday. The newly elected politician isn't going to spurn his benefactors for getting on the bandwagon late.
There are all kinds of arguments to be made about political corruption and the corrosive influence of money in politics, but the only argument being made here is that Kagan is brainless