pelosi isn’t, she’s too busy giving aoc good committee assignments where she can shine in public and saying good things about her.
Fair enough, although I personally feel that Pelosi is using her as a weapon, more than she is endorsing AOC’s positions.
pelosi is only going to truly endorse those positions that won’t cause a revolt against her in her home district. that said, pelosi has enough insight to advance the career of someone young and charismatic with another approach. I have to wonder if this doesn’t advance issues pelosi wants moved. if pelosi wanted to sandbag aoc she could have helped make sure ocasio-cortez got buried on the joint committee on the government printing office and the joint committee on the library of congress instead of the much more visible and powerful financial services committee.
That’s the thing about Pelosi, she at least seems marginally self-aware. She has to know the deals she made and the track she’s taking but I don’t know if I’ve seen her do anything that suggests she would actually try to damage AOC’s career. Maybe she’s willing to make room for the next generation of leadership, and willing to accept that Ocasio-Cortez has a place in that, and if that’s so then that is at least enough for me.
Oh, she’s pandering to me. She’s pandering to everyone like me. I’ve been wanting an intelligent progressive to grill our lawmakers on their intentionally building in systemic corruption to our government for a long time.
That is certainly the most direct approach but not the only one. Look in to the The
American Anti-Corruption Act. This is the grass roots approach to campaign finance reform. The Shareholder Protection Act is another good piece of law for shedding light on the problem Also read about the DISCLOSE Act which would at least inform us about who the corporate shills are.
Where can we brits find someone like her.
In your parliament?
That would be great in the case of AOC, but this is the US, and we’re no longer allowed to have nice things…
Shame she only speaks for scotland. If brexit goes through scotland will want to separate again so we need someone with her level of moral decency and fire to speak for england too.
Yes, those are excellent pieces of proposed legislation, but I don’t see how they address the problem I raised. The US Supreme Court (as I understand it) can invalidate any legislation passed by he legislative and executive branches if the SC deems the law to be in violation of the Constitution (as the current SC interprets the Constitution). Or am I wrong on that point?
And the law, precedent, and even logic don’t really seem to constrain the SC (as an example, see Kavanaugh’s ridiculous dissent on that recent Louisiana abortion case). If five justices say “violates the constitution”, then that all it takes, even the best laws can be struck down. Unless the constitution is changed.
With the AACA, the strategies are based upon existing laws which have already been tested by the courts and deemed constitutional. While I won’t say such strategies solve all the problems, they do a good job of addressing key facets of political corruption and serve as a foundation upon which change can be made.
We can all see the first post where you include that link, No need to spam the thread.
Thanks for that.
Velcome to Boing Boing.
here’s the transcript from your link of the “rebuttal”
Campaign funds are not dark money. They are totally disclosed so they are not dark money. It’s worth noting be the way that dark money constituted by $1.7 billion, I believe that figure is incorrect… Dark money constitutes 2% to 4% of total spending in U.S. elections and has always been involved in U.S. elections.
dark money funds campaigns. it’s called dark money because it gets around existing transparency laws. that’s the point!
usa today reports that about 40% of funding is dark money.
( sorry about the amp link )
i wouldn’t trust a random republican to give you actual facts without citations.
[ edit: thank god for the socialists. good on them, and more of it. ]
What AOC got wrong:
What Smith used in his time to “correct the record” when asked:
- Smith is wrong (or lies) and says that the article she referenced said that the money could not be used that way, but what he says is that we don’t know. He does, however, say that Trump University couldn’t be paid with campaign finances and that it was dangerous to push Cohen to plead on the charges he did.
Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense. In such circumstances, we would not usually expect prosecutors to charge the individuals with a “knowing and willful” violation, leading to criminal charges and possible jail time. A civil fine would be the normal response.
- He says that some assigned a $1.7 billion figure to dark money said by someone earlier (not by AOC), and he says that he believes it is only 1/5 as much or merely $340 million. So this is not a response to AOC at all, and ignores PACs being able to give money to candidates by hosting fundraisers and the like.
- He also then dismisses the idea that congress could be influenced because if they were influenced they wouldn’t reform (so they shouldn’t reform). Also, not a response to AOC, but is basically a threat to the reform committee instead.
Smith is a smart man, but his argument didn’t actually directly address AOC becuase AOC didn’t get anything factually wrong, meanwhile his one point addressed directly to AOC is factually inaccurate and misrepresents his own words on the matter.
Also, that’s not what cherry picking is.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.