Thewillonline/reddit-v1-all · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 16.2k

<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: There’s no fucking way trump is 236. He’s at least 260
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: See what happens when Democrats gain a little bit of power. They win the house and the stock market goes down.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: You're making a fair point but you're making it badly.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: My God please run.

Trump will absolutely DESTROY her.

Guaranteed 2020 win for him if she gets the democratic nomination.

🇺🇸😎🙏
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: To see who controls you, find out who you aren't allowed to criticize.

Make AIPAC illegal.

#[Boycott. Divest. Sanction.](https://bdsmovement.net/)
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Please god, remember this post if the Dems lose, and don't blame the proper leftists like everyone did in 2016
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: This needs a few thousand upvotes.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: I really didn’t expect this much pushback. Very contentious on this sub. Believe what you’d like about me, but I assure you I didn’t intend it this way!
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: Me or OP?
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: And if it was a big deal, that's not my fault.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: If you've only read the majority's opinion, you haven't thought it through.

I've read both. More than once.

The phrase "expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates" is not in 441b at all. In fact it only refers to Targeted communication:

That's because "electioneering communication" is defined in 434(f)(3). It says that right there in that section you quoted (but then deleted ... did you see it after you posted it?).

[434 has since been moved to 52 USC 30104](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/434).

Here's the relevant quote from 30104:

(3) Electioneering communication

For purposes of this subsection—

(A) In general

(i) The term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—

(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;

(II) is made within—

(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or

(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and

(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.

(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally insufficient by final judicial decision to support the regulation provided herein, then the term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.

So, while that particular phrase doesn't appear in 434 either, the Supreme Court wasn't quoting the statute. It was (accurately) describing what the statute applies to.

And keep in mind that, even under 441b, the statute's reach is much broader than just applying to exchanges of money. Here, from your cite, is (b)(2) (emphasis added by me):

(2) For purposes of this section and section 79l(h) of title 15,(!1) the term "contribution or expenditure" includes a contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in section 431 of this title, and also includes any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of value (except a loan of money by a national or State bank made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business) to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section or for any applicable electioneering communication, ....

So the statute doesn't merely prohibit paying money. It applies to "anything of value," or providing any kind of services. So if you stand on a street corner talking to people? That's "services" and therefore covered. If you use your printer to print out leaflets to hand out to people, that's "services" and something of value, and therefore covered.

So we're not just talking about money. We're talking about anything that could possibly have value. And speech and services have value.
<\|endoftext\|>
User:

Reddit Comment: They don’t control the House yet, how the duck do you negotiate with someone who is not in charge, oh wait Trump and his cronies are used to that because they were negotiating with Russia before the inauguration.
<\|endoftext\|>

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: There’s no fucking way trump is 236. He’s at least 260

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: See what happens when Democrats gain a little bit of power. They win the house and the stock market goes down.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: You're making a fair point but you're making it badly.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: My God please run.

Trump will absolutely DESTROY her.

Guaranteed 2020 win for him if she gets the democratic nomination.

🇺🇸😎🙏

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: To see who controls you, find out who you aren't allowed to criticize.

Make AIPAC illegal.

#[Boycott. Divest. Sanction.](https://bdsmovement.net/)

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Please god, remember this post if the Dems lose, and don't blame the proper leftists like everyone did in 2016

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: This needs a few thousand upvotes.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: I really didn’t expect this much pushback. Very contentious on this sub. Believe what you’d like about me, but I assure you I didn’t intend it this way!

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: Me or OP?

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: And if it was a big deal, that's not my fault.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: If you've only read the majority's opinion, you haven't thought it through.

I've read both. More than once.

The phrase "expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates" is not in 441b at all. In fact it only refers to Targeted communication:

That's because "electioneering communication" is defined in 434(f)(3). It says that right there in that section you quoted (but then deleted ... did you see it after you posted it?).

[434 has since been moved to 52 USC 30104](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/434).

Here's the relevant quote from 30104:

(3) Electioneering communication

For purposes of this subsection—

(A) In general

(i) The term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which—

(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;

(II) is made within—

(aa) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or

(bb) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate; and

(III) in the case of a communication which refers to a candidate for an office other than President or Vice President, is targeted to the relevant electorate.

(ii) If clause (i) is held to be constitutionally insufficient by final judicial decision to support the regulation provided herein, then the term “electioneering communication” means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to affect the interpretation or application of section 100.22(b) of title 11, Code of Federal Regulations.

So, while that particular phrase doesn't appear in 434 either, the Supreme Court wasn't quoting the statute. It was (accurately) describing what the statute applies to.

And keep in mind that, even under 441b, the statute's reach is much broader than just applying to exchanges of money. Here, from your cite, is (b)(2) (emphasis added by me):

(2) For purposes of this section and section 79l(h) of title 15,(!1) **the term "contribution or expenditure" includes** a contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in section 431 of this title, and also includes any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, **or any services, or anything of value** (except a loan of money by a national or State bank made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business) to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section or for any applicable electioneering communication, ....

So the statute doesn't merely prohibit paying money. It applies to "anything of value," or providing any kind of *services*. So if you stand on a street corner talking to people? That's "services" and therefore covered. If you use your printer to print out leaflets to hand out to people, that's "services" and something of value, and therefore covered.

So we're not just talking about money. We're talking about anything that could possibly have value. And speech and services have value.

<|endoftext|>

User:

Reddit Comment: They don’t control the House yet, how the duck do you negotiate with someone who is not in charge, oh wait Trump and his cronies are used to that because they were negotiating with Russia before the inauguration.

<|endoftext|>