Source: https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/draining-the-swamp-part-ii.171529
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 20:16:27+00:00

Document:
Deep-pocketed donors face a decision on Wednesday night: whether to dine with the Vice President-elect at the National Portrait Gallery, or enjoy an "intimate policy discussion" with incoming Cabinet appointees at an exclusive dinner at the Library of Congress.
The closed-door events, just two of many being held during inauguration week, were double-scheduled by planners. “It’s all messed up, they have the cabinet dinner and the V.P. dinner on the same night at the same time,” said a top donor of President-elect Donald Trump, who's torn over which to attend.
The article goes on the say this is all legal and that previous administrations have done the same thing though not at such elevated rates.
A reasonable question might be: why? Why is this type of blatant corruption legal?
Deep-pocketed donors face a decision on Wednesday night: whether to dine with the Vice President-elect at the National Portrait Gallery, [b]or enjoy an "intimate policy discussion" with incoming Cabi ...[text shortened]... ted rates.
fall on earth from the moon?
It shouldn't be legal. We all know that. If you have a solution, I'm interested in hearing about it.
Because of Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which held that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because spending money, in the Court's view, is the same as written or verbal expression and therefore cannot be limited and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) which held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) which held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional. Since Trump has said he will appoint only conservative judges to the Court, his promises to "cut down on the influence of big money" seems like a big fat lie.
Further evidence, like anyone really needed any, that he's only interested in the top 1%, and doesn't really give a damn about the "little guy" who still slavishly turned out and voted for him, against their best interests.
Because of Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which held that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because spending money, in the Court's view, is the same as written or verbal expression and therefore cannot be limited and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) which held that corporations may ...[text shortened]... the "little guy" who still slavishly turned out and voted for him, against their best interests.
Yes indeed. It was quite a sales job, was it not? A New York billionaire managed to convince a big percentage of the working class that he and a cabinet full of other billionaire CEO types who've spent their careers exporting jobs, and exploiting the working class are now going to do a "180" and bring all those jobs back, and become the working man's friend. I guess you really can fool some of the people all of the time. 😕 I wonder if they'll still be singing his praises 4 years from now?
You're right: it's a little bumpy.
All of those cases are about election speech. None of them protect selling access to sitting members of the government. Congress could certainly make that sort of thing illegal without offending the First Amendment.
Them there politicians should pass laws against corruption in Washington.
That's what should be done so now go!
Because the people we must rely on to make it illegal are the beneficiaries of the corrupt activity.
You insinuating they gamed the system?
Nonsense. All we need to do is empower the Federal government more.
All that needs to be done is get someone in the Oval Office with a "D" by their name.
Are you going to play this broken record in every single thread? Of course, everybody knows that corruption in the individual States is completely non-existent.
I'm not so sure. If "money is speech" as Scalia so elegantly put it, why can't I "speak" really loudly with a half million bucks?
EDIT: Can't find for sure that Scalia did say that and the theory comes from Buckley v. Valeo, so I'll withdraw the attribution while still asking the rhetorical question.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.