site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27869 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I mean, I feel like I'm not the one being confused. The hypo was specifically about Trump, and you said that you were amending your answer to there being no reporting requirement... in context of a hypo specifically about Trump. But this is why I asked, to make sure that you were saying what I thought you should be saying instead of what you actually said.

That's not true.

You said

Hell, we don't actually need to go all the way to Trump doing it. Could again just say that I, a random ass-individual, spent a few hundred dollars on a "Blue Lives Matter" sign (presumably because you picked it out; I don't think I'd ever do that otherwise), but let's immediately forget that parenthetical and assume that I did it because I thought it would implicitly bolster support for Trump and help Trump's election campaign. Reporting requirement? Criminal?

I said

Neither. Not a reporting requirement, not a crime.

You said

Express advocacy has reporting requirements

I acknowledged that you were right, and said

The distinction I was drawing was that I believed unconnected individuals did not face reporting requirements. You've now alerted me that this is not precisely the case, so I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".

You asked me a hypo about a random individual, I answered about a random individual, I amended my answer in the context of a random individual, and I said so clearly.

Okay, on to the concrete issue.

Do you have any citation from any statute, FEC interpretation, or DOJ manual, that "these types of expenditures" actually meet the definition of "expenditure", as limited by the Supreme Court, and that they then trigger a reporting requirement (where it is a criminal offense to fail to report)?

The FEC website says:

An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value to influence a federal election. "Disbursement" is a broader term that covers both expenditures and other kinds of payments (those not made to influence a federal election). All disbursements are reportable by the campaign.

We can go to the tape.

Suppose Trump pulls two crisp Benjamins out, which happens to be just enough cash to place a "Blue Lives Matter" sign, not on his own lawn, but on a patch of land that cannot be connected to him, personally. He happens to think that this message will implicitly bolster support among people who are likely to vote for him in addition to just personally believing/liking the message and wanting to support the police. Reporting requirement? Criminal?

I think that's a reporting requirement. I haven't gone into any case law, but a plain reading of the legislation would seem to indicate that any expenditure made for the purpose of influencing the election is a campaign expenditure.

Hell, we don't actually need to go all the way to Trump doing it. Could again just say that I, a random ass-individual, spent a few hundred dollars on a "Blue Lives Matter" sign (presumably because you picked it out; I don't think I'd ever do that otherwise), but let's immediately forget that parenthetical and assume that I did it because I thought it would implicitly bolster support for Trump and help Trump's election campaign. Reporting requirement? Criminal?

Neither. Not a reporting requirement, not a crime.

So, when you said:

I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".

Were you amending your answer to the Trump hypothetical or the random ass-individual hypothetical? Because if you were amending your answer to the random ass-individual hypothetical, that wouldn't be an amendment. It would be the same answer you originally gave. The natural reading is that you were amending your answer to the Trump hypothetical.

Do you have any citation from any statute, FEC interpretation, or DOJ manual, that "these types of expenditures" actually meet the definition of "expenditure", as limited by the Supreme Court, and that they then trigger a reporting requirement (where it is a criminal offense to fail to report)?

The FEC website says:

An expenditure is a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value to influence a federal election. "Disbursement" is a broader term that covers both expenditures and other kinds of payments (those not made to influence a federal election). All disbursements are reportable by the campaign.

Wow. Let me specify. "these types of expenditures" means, in the context of the conversation we were having, "a use of personal funds by a candidate that is within the constitutional scope of the definition of 'expenditure'". Like, I didn't think I had to specify this. After all the detail I went into to show how there are these important concerns that aren't captured by the broad definitions you might first encounter, this is basically a non-responsive reply from you. Really just throwing in the towel.

Were you amending your answer to the Trump hypothetical or the random ass-individual hypothetical?

Great question! And a question that was explicitly answered in the two sentences immediately preceding the one you quoted, and bolded in my previous post. Let me capitalize it since bolding was apparently not enough.

The distinction I was drawing was that I believed UNCONNECTED INDIVIDUALS did not face reporting requirements. You've now alerted me that this is not precisely the case, so I amend my answer: Not a reporting requirement nor a crime, because a "Blue Lives Matter" sign does not constitute "express advocacy".

The natural reading is that I was amending the answer I specifically said I was amending.

Wow. Let me specify. "these types of expenditures" means, in the context of the conversation we were having, "a use of personal funds by a candidate that is within the constitutional scope of the definition of 'expenditure'". Like, I didn't think I had to specify this. After all the detail I went into to show how there are these important concerns that aren't captured by the broad definitions you might first encounter, this is basically a non-responsive reply from you. Really just throwing in the towel.

I'm confused. You quoted a handbook that said the general definition of campaign expenditures was what I've been saying it is this whole time. You asked for a FEC interpretation that said that was the correct definition, I provided one. I don't understand what's missing here.

Like, I see that the handbook quote you provided also says that the definition of campaign expenditures has been judicially limited in the context of public communications. But we're talking about a NDA payment, not public communications. So I don't see why that judicial limitation is relevant.

Ok, so not amending. Got it.

And ..sigh. Let me try again. If Trump uses personal funds to buy a "Blue Lives Matter" sign, do you have any citation from any statute, FEC interpretation, or DOJ manual, that "these types of expenditures" (I.e., Blue Lives Matter signs) actually meet the definition of "expenditure", as limited by the Supreme Court, and that they then trigger a reporting requirement (where it is a criminal offense to fail to report)? We'll get to NDAs in a bit.

I mean, I've looked at the FECA text, I've looked at the FEC website, I've listened to some pods, I've looked at the jury instructions, I've read some commentary. That's what I've got. I'm not going to be able to produce anything more than that.

All those things seem to me to answer the question of "what is the law here" in a fairly clear and consistent way. I can be convinced they're all wrong, but at the least you need to be able to tell me what's specifically wrong, and what the right answer is. But as far as I can tell you don't have any alternative formulation, it's just wrong because of the vibe.

Like, say you're the trial judge and you have to write jury instructions. What are you going to tell the jury they need to find to determine if a campaign finance violation has occurred here?

Was this meant to be a reply to this comment instead?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats