You don’t give $25k to a candidate. He phucked up. His own fault. Just because the judge is a partisan hack you don’t have to give him the rope.
The point is the two-tiered justice system.
‘The New York Post recently reported that “Rosie O’Donnell made illegally over-sized campaign donations to at least five Democratic federal candidates, according to a Post analysis of campaign filings.”’
It was his own fault for not supporting Democrats. If he supported Democrats none of this would of happened to him. I hope he learned his lesson./s
True by the head, but not the heart. D’Souza did it because he was all booked up and could not spend the time he dearly wished to, to fundraise for a close (when he was in college he was new to America and felt isolated, so friends then were “friends indeed”) friend.D’Souza’s expressed beef was the “two-tiered justice system,” and the fact that his crime was being, and helping, a Republican.
My beef does not contradict that, but expands on it: The problem is that all “campaign finance reform” legislation is inherently unconstitutional. If you understand that, you expect such laws to be politically
abusedused - “abuse” being the very intent of the legislation.“Campaign Finance Reform” directly violates the First Amendment. It should never have been proposed, never passed, never signed, and never approved by SCOTUS.
Let it be asked, “What is the difference between ‘the freedom of speech’ and ‘the freedom . . . of the press’?” SCOTUS justices have IMHO erred in calling money spent on politics “speech,” when "talk is cheap.” Not that it changes the conclusion, but for clarity of thought the point is that in 1791 the printing press was the technology for using money (spent, e.g., on ink and paper) for the purpose of promoting opinions and ideas. As
makes clear, radio, TV, and the Internet - altho understandably not mentioned or explicitly considered in the drafting of the First Amendment - are anticipated and approved in principle by the Framers (who also anticipated that future developments could require changes, see Article V). TV ads are now the technology par excellence for using money to promote ideas/opinions - and under the First Amendment the government has no right to regulate such expenditures, whether you make them directly or via political parties/candidates.
- Article 1 Section 8:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
“Campaign Finance Reform” makes “the media” (not to put too fine a point on it, the Associated Press and its member newspapers) into nobility having greater rights than “ordinary” citizens.