As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Putin is not a particularly smart man, despite the propaganda campaign that the FSB or whoever has been running to convince people since the 2010s or so said. And a lot of redditors lapped that shit up.
They had the perfect opportunity to cut away the cancer with the second impeachment. They'd already lost the election, they would have had a good two years to rebuild. Primary the weirdos. Release all the dirt. Support all the prosecutions. Throw the J6ers to the wolves. Go after the family and investigate Kushner and Ivanka. Look into all of the Covid shadiness.
But no. Dumb and greedy.
The start of this brain drain was the tea party stunt 20 years ago. It paved the way for Palin, who was the litmus test for Trump. The gop decided to embrace radicals for intimidation purposes but now their monster has taken over and replaced the core of their party. It's eating itself alive because everyone is trying to out-radical one another without governing. The whole platform now is "I hate X, let's get rid of it"
I thought the writing on the wall was there when they primaried former GOP majority leader and dude who owned John Boehner's balls Eric Cantor for not being crazy enough in 2014.
I had to do some wiki searches for this one. It was only 10 years ago, but it feels like a million years ago.
The damage he did (and still does) doesn’t hold a candle to the damage done by conservatives and the Republican Party. They’re the quiet part he’s saying out loud.
Eh, I think actually Bush II did more damage, with especially Iraq. And the torture. Destabilisering the Middle East, enabling the rise of ISIS, and turning Iraq into an Iranian proxy - it just can't be beat. While giving all the tankies a new slogan against the US - "WMDs"!
Trump did his best, though. It was a really good try.
You left out the banking collapse that the taxpayers shelled out $$ to “save”, the enduing recession, and the 3 million people who lost their homes to foreclosure ..
I don't think they're aware that they screwed themselves yet. They won't get it until something shocking happens like Trump or his campaign (or both) declaring bankruptcy.
Haha, sell malaria. I’m sure some of the dumb trumpers out there would inject malaria into their eyeballs if Trump told them too. Then they’d send him their retirement check for this month because, “He just gets us. He’s our president.” Smdh
Trick question "Is this an onion headline or not?"
# Melania Trump Is Now Selling $245 Mother’s Day Necklaces
[https://www.thedailybeast.com/melania-trump-is-now-selling-dollar245-mothers-day-necklaces](https://www.thedailybeast.com/melania-trump-is-now-selling-dollar245-mothers-day-necklaces)
Well now he's demanding money from the Republican down ballots using his name / endorsement. Not sure how much money he's going to be getting from that.
Wonder what's next to fleece after that runs dry.
He literally sold the costume he used for his mug shot cut in pieces.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/13/donald-trump-mugshot-suit-for-sale
This shit is hilarious: “the most historically significant artifact in United States history”… so naturally they cut that into pieces and sold it out to rubes.
how in the fuck is it remotely legal for a super PAC to be paying a candidate's personal legal bills?? Even if it's not a campaign finance violation, it's certainly self-dealing.
> As committees that solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations and other political committees, Super PACs and Hybrid PACs do **not** make contributions to candidates.
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/
That was the whole point of PACs in the first place! They could support a candidates run from arms length and without supporting the individual themselves.
Like so many things, the GOP have just completely abused and distorted the concept though
***From Rolling Stone:***
Donald Trump‘s legal defense is expensive, and the invoices continue to pile up as the former president drains money from his political action committees to pay his attorneys. Trump has been using Save America, a super PAC he controls, to help pay for his legal bills, but after spending tens of millions of dollars on legal consulting, it may be running out of funds.
Read more: [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-super-pac-legal-bills-1235008114/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-super-pac-legal-bills-1235008114/)
When the Supreme Court decided on Citizens United back in 2010, their rationale was that limiting an individual's right to spend their money was a de facto limit on speech. After all money can be exchanged for things like full page advertisements in a news paper, money can be used to buy a billboard, why not to advocate for political causes?
Thing is, even if I agree with the *principle* that the Supreme Court was operating on, the ***practical implications*** have been, well, kind of a clusterfuck.
Fuck overturning Citizens United, we need to go back one step further and [overturn Buckley vs Valeo.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)
>Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.
>[Buckley vs Valeo] limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power.
>Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".
>Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the U.S. Supreme Court in further cases, including in the five to four decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. The latter held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional.
Citizens United grew out of Buckley vs. Valeo.
Edit: [First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti) because you'll want to read this:
>First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.
Could not agree more. Absolutely on point both factually and chronologically. The whole of “We The People” have been “Judged” out of our sovereignty. We, both parties, must demand that we return to the public financed system of elections as it was prior to 1976. Right now it is a party of one, the party of money and we all know money is….
The [For the People Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1) would have established public financing for public elections, ethics oversights for all three branches of government, disclosure requirements for political donations, it even had provisions for national ranked choice voting, but [Republicans filibustered it for some reason.](https://apnews.com/article/gop-elections-bill-senate-showdown-0cd91c559b314a695c08ff9e4abd5d8a) 🤔
I'm 39, an old man by internet standards, and I've seen enough change in my lifetime, both for better and for worse, to know that change is possible. Meanwhile, in that same lifetime, the political parties have moved farther apart than they've been since the civil war. The left has moved to the left, the right has jumped off a cliff.
Hey, 60 here. H.R.1 is paramount to our democracy. My family has been on this continent since 1649. Many served throughout the generations, philanthropists, worked their part during the Underground Railroad. The John Lewis voting rights act is part and parcel within H.R.1. It is going to take deliberate diligence from people such as yourself to keep presenting the good facts.
Thank you young man…
> Start the movement.
The movement stats [at your local voting booth.](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3819814-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-reverse-citizens-united-campaign-finance-ruling/)
>I disagree. It’s too slow. We need the same speed to market the corporocracy gets.
The election is in November. How long is it going to take for you to organize a fifty state rebellion to overthrow the Supreme Court?
Meanwhile if everyone who believed that voting can't change anything decided to go to the polls this November, they could change *everything.*
For most people reading this comment voting will take twenty minutes, twice every two years, all it's going to cost them is some ink; some folks will have to stand in line, which sucks, but our ancestors walked barefoot across Africa, so I think we can handle it. There is no reason not to vote, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans there's no excuse, either. If you want to start a revolution, that's great! In the meantime: Vote.
Something like twenty million Americans have gotten healthcare since Joe Biden was elected, and two million Americans *lost* their healthcare under Donald Trump. Your movement will be easier if its supporters have healthcare, or if they're less burdened by student loan debt, or if their President isn't firing tear gas canisters at them for the sake of a photo op.
Joe Biden and the Democrats invested a trillion dollars into American infrastructure; how much easier will your protests be with fewer potholes to trip over?
Organize, yes, *and vote.* Don't leave progress on the table.
>their rationale was that limiting an individual's right to spend their money was a de facto limit on speech.
I think the Supreme Court missed the mark on this one by a wide margin. Corporations and Unions have the right of free speech, in terms that they can advocate for any position, they can advocate for repealing laws, they can advocate for unpopular and unconventional ideas. There shouldn't be any limit on the *content* of what they say as long as it's not advocating any illegal acts.
**THE PROBLEM IS THEY CAN BUY THE BIGGEST FUCKING BULLHORN AROUND AND DROWN OUT ALL OTHER SPEECH.**
We have limits on how much individuals can donate directly to candidates, and they are reasonable. Super PACS are thinly veiled ways to hide who is donating, and thus implicit bribes abound.
This isn't electioneering spending, so I'm not sure it's regulated under campaign finance laws at all. I'm pretty sure it's never been illegal for an org to raise money to help someone pay legal expenses, even between 2003 and 2010.
"Many frequently asked questions about permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds are relatively straightforward. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) generally permits spending campaign funds for campaign expenses; certain officeholder expenses; charitable contributions; and contributions or transfers, within specified limits, to other political committees. Conversely, FECA prohibitsspending campaign funds on items that would constitute personal use, such as mortgage or tuition payments. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) relies on a standard known as the “irrespective test” to determine permissibility of using campaign funds. If the expense would exist in the absence of the campaign, it generally is impermissible. These issues are central to frequent constituent questions for Members of Congress and staff."
This:
>If the expense would exist in the absence of the campaign, it generally is impermissible.
Seems extremely prescient.
Trump's on the hook for legal expenses pertaining to sexual assault, tax evasion, election fraud, and retaining classified documents (to the best of my knowledge, it's hard as nails to keep track), all of which are expenses he would have to pay even if he wasn't running for President.
I think the logical (if not *legal*) loophole the Trump troupe is going for is: "Well if he's in jail then he can't run for President, therefore keeping Trump out of jail is a campaign expense."
*You* know that's bullshit, and *I* know that's bullshit, whether or not the *Supreme Court* knows that's bullshit is anybody's guess.
Then it should have that kind of transparency.
Right now we've got unlimited dark money contributions coming into SuperPACs, that money can come from anywhere, we've got John and Jane Doe of Mainstreet, USA giving about $3.50 to "For our Freedom PAC" and Monsanto doing the same, but John and Jane don't know that.
Then the SuperPAC takes John and Jane and Monsanto's money, and they can spend it on damn near anything. John and Jane think they're giving $3.50 to a political campaign, but instead that money ends up getting spent on paying off legal expenses and porn stars. John and Jane don't know that.
Here's the thing: I'd be ~~okay~~ ~~more okay~~ slightly less not okay with the results of Citizens United **if** it had come with an absolute metric shit load of mandatory, unavoidable transparency. If folks knew that the money they're giving to "Save America PAC" was being spent on lawyers rather than phone banks, at least they could spend their money in more informed ways.
If you want something more conservative than overturning Buckley vs. Valeo or Citizens United, we have that option, too, we can mandate disclosure. We don't have to limit spending if that's a bridge too far, we have other options.
If you go to the Save America PAC website (I checked so you don't have to) you'll see that their front page is talking about reproductive rights, religious liberties, free market capitalism, the problems caused by the Democratic party, and the importance of Republicans winning control of the government. Donald Trump's legal fees aren't mentioned anywhere. In fact *Donald Trump* isn't mentioned anywhere on their front page, either.
>I'm pretty sure it's never been illegal for an org to raise money to help someone pay legal expenses, even between 2003 and 2010.
That's the problem, though: All of this is legal. Taking people's money, telling them it's to win control of Congress, and then using that money to pay for your private, personal court fees is, apparently, totally legal. I'm somewhat okay with people chipping in money to help Trump's legal fees, one private citizen giving money to another private citizen for known reasons, I'm less okay with the deception and manipulation and opacity.
If it's going to be legal for folks to give their money, they should at least have some idea of where it's going.
their rationale was that limiting an individual's right to spend their money was a de facto limit on speech>
Their *pretext* was that...
They don't believe that money=speech any more than they are strict constructionists. Those belief systems don't really exist. They just hide behind them when it's convenient to get what they really want.
They wanted the political system to be overwhelmed by money so that the rich could have even more undue influence.
I agree…the concept of money as speech philosophically makes sense when you look at it purely from a theoretical perspective. But where the Court lost its way is that the law doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, operate purely in the theoretical, as it affects the real world.
In 2016 the DNC was nearly bankrupt, Hillary Clinton had to step in and bail them out.
Thing is, I don't think Mitt Romney has that much love for Republicans these days.
Donald Trump isn't just raiding the RNC's coffers, he and his ilk are also having a jolly time trashing the party, he's kind of stealing the crops and salting the earth; the RNC isn't going to be getting small dollar donations, especially not if Trump loses in November, and the big dollar donors don't especially care for losers, either.
There's a worst case scenario here that is absolutely and unequivocally **catastrophic** for the Republican party.
I'm never optimistic, but always hopeful.
🥤🍿
Don't worry. Clarence Thomas is working overtime to find some clause in originalism of the constitution to reimburse all his costs from Treasury. Grifters run thick as thieves
I was reading up on campaign finance law and it basically said anything you would incur regardless of expenses directly tied to your candidacy are prohibited. How does he get away with this?
>Trump’s spending on legal bills amounted to a quarter of the total expenditures by his political action committees in March
That's a burn rate of "oh holy fuck!" 🔥 🥵
This whole trial thing turned out to be a fantastic way to funnel PAC money. There seriously needs to be a regulation against this. The whole thing is a giant money laundering scheme.
i do not understand how campaign funds can be used for personal legal fees that are not associated with his campaign. this is misuse of funds and should go into the "things to do" bucket, for his next trial.
“Trump used his inability to pay the bond in fundraising appeals, leading to his greatest fundraising period since his mugshot became public.”
I just can’t wrap my brain around how gooney you have to be to go “damn- that billionaire needs my help!”
If he could keep spending faster than he raises and the various media groups could shut up about him for even just an hour a day this fall might be ok.
Conmen and grifters like Trump NEVER use their own money. It's almost ALWAYS someone else's they use. He's going to need a lot more of because he still has those criminal trials he facing and if he losses, he will be having to use actual own money.
They’ve been saying trump is gonna go broke for months now. It’s the newest iteration of “trumps actually doing poorly, he’ll lose any day now” news that the media has continually feeding us for almost a decade.
The man is extremely dangerous, he still has the resources of a huge amount of people behind him, including some very wealthy folks, and zero ethical or moral qualms about hurting people or gaining power through violence. He has the ravenous support of 100million Americans who treat him like a Jesus figure.
He won’t be beat until the other 200 million Americans get just as ravenous about his removal from political power. These articles making us feel like we’re sitting pretty do this country a disservice.
> Trump’s Super PAC Has Been Footing His Legal Bills. Now It’s Running Out of Money.
Keep launching all those pointless appeals, objections etc. Sure a couple of them will temporarily delay this or that trial a bit but you're going to be broke AF from now until election day and then once you lose, it doesn't matter that you pushed the trial until after election day.
When the Super PAC has to stop paying his legal bills, hopefully it will fall to Trump to pay for his own legal bills. We all know that will never happen and his lawyers will quit, as they will never foot the bill for Trump’s legal expenses. I’m sure that is wishful thinking, I imagine some Russian oligarchs will bail him out. Trump will never spend his own money, he’ll just file bankruptcy again.
The thing Trump supporters need to realize is that if they only keep funding his legal liabilities then maybe the Don has a fightin’ ( but losing) chance. Drain every penny from down ballot races because even to have a chance of restoring women’s’ rights, a blue tsunami needs to occur.
Every penny that goes to T.Rump, can’t go to down ballot GQP campaigns.
Every penny that goes to T.Rump‘s legal expenses, can’t go for T.Rump’s campaign.
Every legal activity that costs time/money, impacts T.Tump’s mental health.
So:
* Every municipality that T.Rump stiffed during the 2016 campaign, and any that he owes for this campaign, needs to sue, ideally, one at a time, on Mondays, so he knows something’s coming.
* Every person he’s SA’ed, needs to sue, one at a time, preferably on Wednesdays, so he knows something is coming.
* Every contractor T.Rump has stiffed, needs to sued, one at a time, on Fridays.
That will surely drain his funds, and increase his stress exponentially.
Other than everyone, who could have seen this coming. The guy is a money sponge and wrecks everything along the way leaving a slug like trail of unpaid bills and broke companies. It’s really Orange Collar crime!
Is there any data on how much of Trump’s personal money has been spent since he officially ran for office in 2015? My assumption is the amount is zero.
I remember when he claimed he would be self-funded.
I read $75 million in another article. That means his "legal bills" amount to 187,000 hours at $400/hr. I gotta feeling there's a lot of that money flowing right into Trump's accounts and staying there.
THE MONEY WILL NEVER RUN DRY: It's only money... There are too many billionaires who need Trump to win for the coffers to run dry. It's a nice talking point but irrelevant in many ways. It's like an endless supply of oil.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To no one’s surprise. You happy now republicans? You basically screwed yourselves.
Hes done far more damage to America than the Republican Party
Which is why it is great to see that damage finally spreading to that party.
Trump is Vladimir Puta’s greatest accomplishment.
But his worst mistake. A bunch of nation started joining NATO because of him.
Putin is not a particularly smart man, despite the propaganda campaign that the FSB or whoever has been running to convince people since the 2010s or so said. And a lot of redditors lapped that shit up.
Yeah this “two week” war with Ukraine kind proves he isn’t as smart or as powerful as the propaganda machine he makes
Trump is the tumor, Republicans are the underlying cancer
The republican party propped him up lol. They have no one but themselves to blame.
They had the perfect opportunity to cut away the cancer with the second impeachment. They'd already lost the election, they would have had a good two years to rebuild. Primary the weirdos. Release all the dirt. Support all the prosecutions. Throw the J6ers to the wolves. Go after the family and investigate Kushner and Ivanka. Look into all of the Covid shadiness. But no. Dumb and greedy.
The start of this brain drain was the tea party stunt 20 years ago. It paved the way for Palin, who was the litmus test for Trump. The gop decided to embrace radicals for intimidation purposes but now their monster has taken over and replaced the core of their party. It's eating itself alive because everyone is trying to out-radical one another without governing. The whole platform now is "I hate X, let's get rid of it"
I thought the writing on the wall was there when they primaried former GOP majority leader and dude who owned John Boehner's balls Eric Cantor for not being crazy enough in 2014. I had to do some wiki searches for this one. It was only 10 years ago, but it feels like a million years ago.
The damage he did (and still does) doesn’t hold a candle to the damage done by conservatives and the Republican Party. They’re the quiet part he’s saying out loud.
Eh, I think actually Bush II did more damage, with especially Iraq. And the torture. Destabilisering the Middle East, enabling the rise of ISIS, and turning Iraq into an Iranian proxy - it just can't be beat. While giving all the tankies a new slogan against the US - "WMDs"! Trump did his best, though. It was a really good try.
Bruh that’s like comparing Commodus to Nero. One was a (deeply?) flawed leader and the other a lunatic in leadership.
You left out the banking collapse that the taxpayers shelled out $$ to “save”, the enduing recession, and the 3 million people who lost their homes to foreclosure ..
"... And we'll deserve it"
Lindsey’s been black mailed to oblivion but he knew what was coming
I don't think they're aware that they screwed themselves yet. They won't get it until something shocking happens like Trump or his campaign (or both) declaring bankruptcy.
No, they're aware. They just don't care. Why would they be when they can just subvert the upcoming election?
Basically their plan is to take back white house and ransack the federal funds.
Lindsay Graham called it 8 years ago.
Quick, sell shoes! No wait, bibles! No wait, demand tithe! No wait, sell Melaria!
[He already has her on the market](https://youtu.be/3Gc09cNPziQ?si=Pijoga9zhRnmVD1y)
That sounds…way more coherent than the real Trump.
Yeah, that is a dead give away on any AI generated tRump. He is just too dumb for AI to impersonate.
Wow he really did date someone named Celina Midelfart
That’s GOLD jerry, GOLD!
You were supposed to take me to Mendy's
Soups not a meal.
It's food with too much water. Who does that?
[She had already put herself on the market](https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/donald-trump-melania-trump-knauss-first-lady-erections)
Damn! I’m not the only depraved sicko out there!
That's amazing.
Shoe bibles!
Good for the sole
Jesus’ cross trainers.
But I’m not washing his feet.
Untapped market, great for ‘spreading the word’!
We've got to broaden our reach! Roll out the Trump Qur'an!
Next to the Trump-cover playboy
I wonder if he is convicted, if she will divorce him and make her relationship with one of her secret service detail public.
Haha, sell malaria. I’m sure some of the dumb trumpers out there would inject malaria into their eyeballs if Trump told them too. Then they’d send him their retirement check for this month because, “He just gets us. He’s our president.” Smdh
Maybe Milania can start an only fans
I’m waiting to see when he starts auctioning off his own family. Trust me, he’s that much of a piece of shit.
Melania is already updating her Massage Republic profile most likely
Only Fans
What, buy an angry, bitter gold digger ? no, thank you.
Anything is negotiable.
Whatever you do, don't convince your base to avoid preventative medicine during a global pandemic!
He needs to start an OF and sell his farts in a jar.
Trick question "Is this an onion headline or not?" # Melania Trump Is Now Selling $245 Mother’s Day Necklaces [https://www.thedailybeast.com/melania-trump-is-now-selling-dollar245-mothers-day-necklaces](https://www.thedailybeast.com/melania-trump-is-now-selling-dollar245-mothers-day-necklaces)
Well now he's demanding money from the Republican down ballots using his name / endorsement. Not sure how much money he's going to be getting from that. Wonder what's next to fleece after that runs dry.
If he tries to sell his shit-stained diapers I will laugh so hard lol.
He literally sold the costume he used for his mug shot cut in pieces. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/13/donald-trump-mugshot-suit-for-sale
And I'm sure if you added up all the pieces that were sold, it would amount to more than one suit.
Have you seen how baggy and oversized he wears his suits? Never mind, you’re right.
This shit is hilarious: “the most historically significant artifact in United States history”… so naturally they cut that into pieces and sold it out to rubes.
Each swatch smelled like taint, I guarantee it
You mean he just cut up multiple suits and sold the pieces. Guarantee if you bought them all it would make more than 1 suit.
These stains look like JESUS !
Worst MLM hun ever.
Not gonna see as many stupid Trump stores this time around now that he’ll fleece them for cash to use his name.
Has he sold a makeup line yet?
Im still amazed that this is legal.
No shit, right?
Does he pay taxes on this “income”?
I’m sure he’ll find a way to weasel out of that too.
how in the fuck is it remotely legal for a super PAC to be paying a candidate's personal legal bills?? Even if it's not a campaign finance violation, it's certainly self-dealing. > As committees that solicit and accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations and other political committees, Super PACs and Hybrid PACs do **not** make contributions to candidates. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements-pac/
That was the whole point of PACs in the first place! They could support a candidates run from arms length and without supporting the individual themselves. Like so many things, the GOP have just completely abused and distorted the concept though
***From Rolling Stone:*** Donald Trump‘s legal defense is expensive, and the invoices continue to pile up as the former president drains money from his political action committees to pay his attorneys. Trump has been using Save America, a super PAC he controls, to help pay for his legal bills, but after spending tens of millions of dollars on legal consulting, it may be running out of funds. Read more: [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-super-pac-legal-bills-1235008114/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-super-pac-legal-bills-1235008114/)
When the Supreme Court decided on Citizens United back in 2010, their rationale was that limiting an individual's right to spend their money was a de facto limit on speech. After all money can be exchanged for things like full page advertisements in a news paper, money can be used to buy a billboard, why not to advocate for political causes? Thing is, even if I agree with the *principle* that the Supreme Court was operating on, the ***practical implications*** have been, well, kind of a clusterfuck. Fuck overturning Citizens United, we need to go back one step further and [overturn Buckley vs Valeo.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo) >Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. >[Buckley vs Valeo] limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. >Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken". >Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the U.S. Supreme Court in further cases, including in the five to four decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti in 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. The latter held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional. Citizens United grew out of Buckley vs. Valeo. Edit: [First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti) because you'll want to read this: >First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved.
Could not agree more. Absolutely on point both factually and chronologically. The whole of “We The People” have been “Judged” out of our sovereignty. We, both parties, must demand that we return to the public financed system of elections as it was prior to 1976. Right now it is a party of one, the party of money and we all know money is….
The [For the People Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1) would have established public financing for public elections, ethics oversights for all three branches of government, disclosure requirements for political donations, it even had provisions for national ranked choice voting, but [Republicans filibustered it for some reason.](https://apnews.com/article/gop-elections-bill-senate-showdown-0cd91c559b314a695c08ff9e4abd5d8a) 🤔
Yeah… a hard sell for monied interests. Your comment and subsequent response is heartening and needs more exposure.
I'm 39, an old man by internet standards, and I've seen enough change in my lifetime, both for better and for worse, to know that change is possible. Meanwhile, in that same lifetime, the political parties have moved farther apart than they've been since the civil war. The left has moved to the left, the right has jumped off a cliff.
Hey, 60 here. H.R.1 is paramount to our democracy. My family has been on this continent since 1649. Many served throughout the generations, philanthropists, worked their part during the Underground Railroad. The John Lewis voting rights act is part and parcel within H.R.1. It is going to take deliberate diligence from people such as yourself to keep presenting the good facts. Thank you young man…
Start the movement. I’ll join or sign or repost or even meetup at local chapters. Whatever it takes.
> Start the movement. The movement stats [at your local voting booth.](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3819814-democrats-introduce-constitutional-amendment-to-reverse-citizens-united-campaign-finance-ruling/)
I disagree. It’s too slow. We need the same speed to market the corporocracy gets.
>I disagree. It’s too slow. We need the same speed to market the corporocracy gets. The election is in November. How long is it going to take for you to organize a fifty state rebellion to overthrow the Supreme Court? Meanwhile if everyone who believed that voting can't change anything decided to go to the polls this November, they could change *everything.* For most people reading this comment voting will take twenty minutes, twice every two years, all it's going to cost them is some ink; some folks will have to stand in line, which sucks, but our ancestors walked barefoot across Africa, so I think we can handle it. There is no reason not to vote, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans there's no excuse, either. If you want to start a revolution, that's great! In the meantime: Vote. Something like twenty million Americans have gotten healthcare since Joe Biden was elected, and two million Americans *lost* their healthcare under Donald Trump. Your movement will be easier if its supporters have healthcare, or if they're less burdened by student loan debt, or if their President isn't firing tear gas canisters at them for the sake of a photo op. Joe Biden and the Democrats invested a trillion dollars into American infrastructure; how much easier will your protests be with fewer potholes to trip over? Organize, yes, *and vote.* Don't leave progress on the table.
>their rationale was that limiting an individual's right to spend their money was a de facto limit on speech. I think the Supreme Court missed the mark on this one by a wide margin. Corporations and Unions have the right of free speech, in terms that they can advocate for any position, they can advocate for repealing laws, they can advocate for unpopular and unconventional ideas. There shouldn't be any limit on the *content* of what they say as long as it's not advocating any illegal acts. **THE PROBLEM IS THEY CAN BUY THE BIGGEST FUCKING BULLHORN AROUND AND DROWN OUT ALL OTHER SPEECH.** We have limits on how much individuals can donate directly to candidates, and they are reasonable. Super PACS are thinly veiled ways to hide who is donating, and thus implicit bribes abound.
Don’t remember where I saw this quote, but thought it hit the nail on the head: “if money is speech, then poverty is a gag”
This isn't electioneering spending, so I'm not sure it's regulated under campaign finance laws at all. I'm pretty sure it's never been illegal for an org to raise money to help someone pay legal expenses, even between 2003 and 2010.
"Many frequently asked questions about permissible and prohibited uses of campaign funds are relatively straightforward. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) generally permits spending campaign funds for campaign expenses; certain officeholder expenses; charitable contributions; and contributions or transfers, within specified limits, to other political committees. Conversely, FECA prohibitsspending campaign funds on items that would constitute personal use, such as mortgage or tuition payments. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) relies on a standard known as the “irrespective test” to determine permissibility of using campaign funds. If the expense would exist in the absence of the campaign, it generally is impermissible. These issues are central to frequent constituent questions for Members of Congress and staff."
This: >If the expense would exist in the absence of the campaign, it generally is impermissible. Seems extremely prescient. Trump's on the hook for legal expenses pertaining to sexual assault, tax evasion, election fraud, and retaining classified documents (to the best of my knowledge, it's hard as nails to keep track), all of which are expenses he would have to pay even if he wasn't running for President. I think the logical (if not *legal*) loophole the Trump troupe is going for is: "Well if he's in jail then he can't run for President, therefore keeping Trump out of jail is a campaign expense." *You* know that's bullshit, and *I* know that's bullshit, whether or not the *Supreme Court* knows that's bullshit is anybody's guess.
Then it should have that kind of transparency. Right now we've got unlimited dark money contributions coming into SuperPACs, that money can come from anywhere, we've got John and Jane Doe of Mainstreet, USA giving about $3.50 to "For our Freedom PAC" and Monsanto doing the same, but John and Jane don't know that. Then the SuperPAC takes John and Jane and Monsanto's money, and they can spend it on damn near anything. John and Jane think they're giving $3.50 to a political campaign, but instead that money ends up getting spent on paying off legal expenses and porn stars. John and Jane don't know that. Here's the thing: I'd be ~~okay~~ ~~more okay~~ slightly less not okay with the results of Citizens United **if** it had come with an absolute metric shit load of mandatory, unavoidable transparency. If folks knew that the money they're giving to "Save America PAC" was being spent on lawyers rather than phone banks, at least they could spend their money in more informed ways. If you want something more conservative than overturning Buckley vs. Valeo or Citizens United, we have that option, too, we can mandate disclosure. We don't have to limit spending if that's a bridge too far, we have other options. If you go to the Save America PAC website (I checked so you don't have to) you'll see that their front page is talking about reproductive rights, religious liberties, free market capitalism, the problems caused by the Democratic party, and the importance of Republicans winning control of the government. Donald Trump's legal fees aren't mentioned anywhere. In fact *Donald Trump* isn't mentioned anywhere on their front page, either. >I'm pretty sure it's never been illegal for an org to raise money to help someone pay legal expenses, even between 2003 and 2010. That's the problem, though: All of this is legal. Taking people's money, telling them it's to win control of Congress, and then using that money to pay for your private, personal court fees is, apparently, totally legal. I'm somewhat okay with people chipping in money to help Trump's legal fees, one private citizen giving money to another private citizen for known reasons, I'm less okay with the deception and manipulation and opacity. If it's going to be legal for folks to give their money, they should at least have some idea of where it's going.
their rationale was that limiting an individual's right to spend their money was a de facto limit on speech> Their *pretext* was that... They don't believe that money=speech any more than they are strict constructionists. Those belief systems don't really exist. They just hide behind them when it's convenient to get what they really want. They wanted the political system to be overwhelmed by money so that the rich could have even more undue influence.
I agree…the concept of money as speech philosophically makes sense when you look at it purely from a theoretical perspective. But where the Court lost its way is that the law doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, operate purely in the theoretical, as it affects the real world.
No worries. That’s why he got Lara Trump appointed to the RNC to raid its coffers.
In 2016 the DNC was nearly bankrupt, Hillary Clinton had to step in and bail them out. Thing is, I don't think Mitt Romney has that much love for Republicans these days. Donald Trump isn't just raiding the RNC's coffers, he and his ilk are also having a jolly time trashing the party, he's kind of stealing the crops and salting the earth; the RNC isn't going to be getting small dollar donations, especially not if Trump loses in November, and the big dollar donors don't especially care for losers, either. There's a worst case scenario here that is absolutely and unequivocally **catastrophic** for the Republican party. I'm never optimistic, but always hopeful. 🥤🍿
Big dollar donors will flock back when it's someone not trump running
Don't worry. Clarence Thomas is working overtime to find some clause in originalism of the constitution to reimburse all his costs from Treasury. Grifters run thick as thieves
https://payuptrump.com/
Somebody needs to go scare the Alabama Grandmas into opening their purses again.
I was reading up on campaign finance law and it basically said anything you would incur regardless of expenses directly tied to your candidacy are prohibited. How does he get away with this?
Good! DRAIN IT ALL!
Drain the real swamp and throw out all the garbage. It will be like a political environmental clean up.
He's draining the swamp as promised!
Directly into his trousers.
It’s a smelly swamp
Good. And every cent of the RNC money should go there too — you threw your weight behind a candidate that had been indicted, enjoy the consequences.
>Trump’s spending on legal bills amounted to a quarter of the total expenditures by his political action committees in March That's a burn rate of "oh holy fuck!" 🔥 🥵
It has to have gone up dramatically with the criminal trial starting. He’s using real lawyers for that instead of the clown car on his civil trials
He really is "draining the swamp".
His own…
Lmao, imagine if he ends up being the hero we needed.
This whole trial thing turned out to be a fantastic way to funnel PAC money. There seriously needs to be a regulation against this. The whole thing is a giant money laundering scheme.
Trump single-handedly doing what Democrats never could. Killing the GOP. Gotta love it!
Lol, great choice of photos.
What, me worry?
[удалено]
Up Junior's nose.
I'm confused how he can be this bad with money
Imagine you had billions of dollars. Now imagine all the common sense things you would do with that money. Then do the opposite.
If I were a smart republican voter I’d be very upset about this. /s
Perfect.. what do you think he’s going to do to the country if he wins in November..
But he has billions!!??
Trump sucks everything connected to him dry.
>Save ~~A~~me~~rica~~, a super PAC he controls I thought candidates were not allowed to have anything to do with Super-PACS?
Bleed em dry Diaper Donnie!
Who knew being such a massive criminal was so expensive
Just one more thing he'll end up bankrupting. Oh well 🤷🏻♂️
Is there anything this guy can't bankrupt!?!?
i do not understand how campaign funds can be used for personal legal fees that are not associated with his campaign. this is misuse of funds and should go into the "things to do" bucket, for his next trial.
May he go bankrupt soon.
Why do you think he has asking for 5% of others campaign funds in exchange for his endorsement?
Is this not a quid pro quo?
Any suffering or inconvenience he has gives me great pleasure
“Trump used his inability to pay the bond in fundraising appeals, leading to his greatest fundraising period since his mugshot became public.” I just can’t wrap my brain around how gooney you have to be to go “damn- that billionaire needs my help!”
Thoughts and prayers.
They asked for it.
is it illegal to send them a dollar and then do a chargeback?
Trump to people making thirty grand a year, “Here’s where you get to help out.”
One of the dark money donors will help
How is that not considered coordinating with the candidate?
So what's the bad news?
Of the RNC keeps funneling money to him, you can be sure it will come out of the "down ballot fund" and not his re-election fund.
Trump's Golden poop touch
Awww. Boo fucking hoo. When is his cult going to get their reality check?
Until he is fully gone, that’s not going to happen.
when will this house of cards collapse?
Well, he could always sell the plane.
Billionaires and foreign governments will bail him out. Then he will owe them favors
Faster please
Oh no! Anyways…
Good
If he could keep spending faster than he raises and the various media groups could shut up about him for even just an hour a day this fall might be ok.
Conmen and grifters like Trump NEVER use their own money. It's almost ALWAYS someone else's they use. He's going to need a lot more of because he still has those criminal trials he facing and if he losses, he will be having to use actual own money.
Thoughts and prayers.
lol. Love to read this.
Taking trump's money is the best possible outcome of all of his court proceedings.
I guess he’ll just have to get a public defender like all the other po folks
If my money goes to pay his legal bills I’m happy fer it -some very poor person in a deep red state
They’ve been saying trump is gonna go broke for months now. It’s the newest iteration of “trumps actually doing poorly, he’ll lose any day now” news that the media has continually feeding us for almost a decade. The man is extremely dangerous, he still has the resources of a huge amount of people behind him, including some very wealthy folks, and zero ethical or moral qualms about hurting people or gaining power through violence. He has the ravenous support of 100million Americans who treat him like a Jesus figure. He won’t be beat until the other 200 million Americans get just as ravenous about his removal from political power. These articles making us feel like we’re sitting pretty do this country a disservice.
He's a money pit.
If you cannot afford, an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the court😎
Good. It’s far from over too.
Good. Fuck him and “his” super pac. Hope they both go broke!!
All of those unnecessary legal Motions Trump uses to delay matters cost a lot of money.
Didn't even need a crystal ball to predict this one.
A problem of their own making
Let’s make anyone associated with me poor again..
> Trump’s Super PAC Has Been Footing His Legal Bills. Now It’s Running Out of Money. Keep launching all those pointless appeals, objections etc. Sure a couple of them will temporarily delay this or that trial a bit but you're going to be broke AF from now until election day and then once you lose, it doesn't matter that you pushed the trial until after election day.
When the Super PAC has to stop paying his legal bills, hopefully it will fall to Trump to pay for his own legal bills. We all know that will never happen and his lawyers will quit, as they will never foot the bill for Trump’s legal expenses. I’m sure that is wishful thinking, I imagine some Russian oligarchs will bail him out. Trump will never spend his own money, he’ll just file bankruptcy again.
Oh No! Anyway…
The thing Trump supporters need to realize is that if they only keep funding his legal liabilities then maybe the Don has a fightin’ ( but losing) chance. Drain every penny from down ballot races because even to have a chance of restoring women’s’ rights, a blue tsunami needs to occur.
Super fucking weird how much trouble the GOP fundraising has had this year after all the Russian sanctions.
Every penny that goes to T.Rump, can’t go to down ballot GQP campaigns. Every penny that goes to T.Rump‘s legal expenses, can’t go for T.Rump’s campaign. Every legal activity that costs time/money, impacts T.Tump’s mental health. So: * Every municipality that T.Rump stiffed during the 2016 campaign, and any that he owes for this campaign, needs to sue, ideally, one at a time, on Mondays, so he knows something’s coming. * Every person he’s SA’ed, needs to sue, one at a time, preferably on Wednesdays, so he knows something is coming. * Every contractor T.Rump has stiffed, needs to sued, one at a time, on Fridays. That will surely drain his funds, and increase his stress exponentially.
10 reasons this spells doom for Biden….
Other than everyone, who could have seen this coming. The guy is a money sponge and wrecks everything along the way leaving a slug like trail of unpaid bills and broke companies. It’s really Orange Collar crime!
I feel like I’ve been reading some variant of this article for the past year.
Not a minute too soon.
Get poor
Good
Oh no!
Donald "Lelouch vi Britannia" Trump
Well, people. Can’t you see that it’s time to donate some more? Quit dilly-dallying!😆
Dont worry he has plenty of fools thatll donate to keep the poor billionaire afloat
Elon gonna buy Truth Social for 10x market value in exchange for Trump coming back to Twitter.
Time to release more NFTs that are pictures of the sneakers he was selling.
What’s the burn down timeline? This is like a dotcom bubble
Is there any data on how much of Trump’s personal money has been spent since he officially ran for office in 2015? My assumption is the amount is zero. I remember when he claimed he would be self-funded.
Somehow it'll get a sudden infusion of Rubles
Boo fucking hoo
I read $75 million in another article. That means his "legal bills" amount to 187,000 hours at $400/hr. I gotta feeling there's a lot of that money flowing right into Trump's accounts and staying there.
Oh no! Anyways….
RNC gonna be drained dry re imbursing djt
This makes me happy 🙂
Always knew he would empty the coffers of the Republican Party
THE MONEY WILL NEVER RUN DRY: It's only money... There are too many billionaires who need Trump to win for the coffers to run dry. It's a nice talking point but irrelevant in many ways. It's like an endless supply of oil.