• FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s pretty obviously illegal if you interpret rules. But the conservative supreme court just finds weird alternative interpretations. So writing a law that directly states it means the supreme court cant really interpret thenselves out of it.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        They just rule that “spending money” is speech.

        That makes the law an unconstitutional infringement on the first amendment.

  • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I feel like this type of thing needs some kind of name with a bit of pizazz. I’ll go first.

    • bribery
  • Lovable Sidekick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    FFS this isn’t already illegal???

    When I was a kid many states banned alcohol sales on election day. This gradually died out about 10 years ago, but Washington still has a law specifically barring candidates and their organizations from buying people drinks that day. Seems incredible that bribing voters outright with money hasn’t been outlawed.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It is already explicitly illegal but right-wing courts have used “creative” interpretations of law to make it ok. Kinda like civil asset forfeiture, which is clearly and explicitly in violation of the US Constitution. Or “qualified immunity”, which was invented by the USSC with no basis in law to make it so that the government doesn’t really have to follow the US Constitution and could violate civil rights as much as they want.

      • Lovable Sidekick
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        It helps when you can put people on the court yourself, and then have it rule that presidential immunity covers your insurrection.

  • rottingleafBanned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    OK, I’ve read many Murricans say that, but didn’t believe that. Now, after seeing this post, I think something snapped.

    Yes, you are a banana republic.

  • Wilco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    Loophole: Republicans dont actually pay any of the incentives. They literally fuck over thier voters by lying and giving out the promised money to PAC administrators who are already millionaires.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    in hotly contested elections

    How about just ALL elections? Make showing up obligatory, give workers time off by law, everyone votes, period

    • friend_of_satan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Exactly my first thought. Having a condition means having a loophole.

  • omega_x3
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Only in hotly contested elections? Ugh how close does the poll have to be to be hotly contested?

  • blazeknave
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Ummm… What about not hotly congested elections?

  • PixelPilgrim@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m against this. I’m all for cash incentives to turn out to vote. Plus politicians pay off their donors with government money