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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We can go to the tape.
So, when you said:
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.
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.
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 natural reading is that I was amending the answer I specifically said I was amending.
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link