Isn’t this shit already illegal, but the real issue is you can’t enforce the law against the ultra-rich?
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
275 points (100.0% liked)
California
1815 readers
108 users here now
Welcome to /c/California, an online haven that brings to life the unrivaled diversity and vibrancy of California! This engaging community offers a virtual exploration of the Golden State, taking you from the stunning Pacific coastline to the rugged Sierra Nevada, and every town, city, and landmark in between. Discover California's world-class wineries, stunning national parks, innovative tech scene, robust agricultural heartland, and culturally diverse metropolises.
Discussions span a wide range of topics—from travel tips and restaurant recommendations to local politics and environmental issues. Whether you're a lifelong resident, a recent transplant, or planning your dream visit, /c/California is your one-stop place to share experiences, ask questions, and celebrate all the things that make California truly unique.
Related Communities:
Nearby Communities:
- California
- Bakersfield, CA
- Bay Area, CA
- Burbank, CA
- Fresno, CA
- Long Beach, CA
- Los Angeles, CA
- Oakland, CA
- San Diego, CA
- San Jose, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Sacramento, CA
- Santa Clarita, CA
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
They just rule that "spending money" is speech.
That makes the law an unconstitutional infringement on the first amendment.
Its unbelievable that he was able to get away with that in the first place.
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.
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.
It helps when you can put people on the court yourself, and then have it rule that presidential immunity covers your insurrection.
I feel like this type of thing needs some kind of name with a bit of pizazz. I’ll go first.
- bribery
Let's continue down the alphabet, I'll go next:
corruption
me next d=DicklessDumbfucks
How was this not already illegal?
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.
in hotly contested elections
How about just ALL elections? Make showing up obligatory, give workers time off by law, everyone votes, period
Exactly my first thought. Having a condition means having a loophole.
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.
You just offended several banana republics.
Umm, how about talking about Citizens United?
Only in hotly contested elections? Ugh how close does the poll have to be to be hotly contested?
Ummm... What about not hotly congested elections?
I'm against this. I'm all for cash incentives to turn out to vote. Plus politicians pay off their donors with government money