Dear Republican Party 2018, Some Americans are demanding a Senator vote a certain way, and if she doesn't, they'll spend a lot of money trying to defeat her. You think that's free speech. Sincerely, Republican Party 2015https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1039675083604807680 …
-
-
In 2017, Rep. Chris Collins publicly admitted he was voting for the tax bill because his donors will telling him "get it done or don't ever call me again." Direct financial threat, tied to a specific vote in Congress. 3/x
Show this thread -
There are tons of these examples. Vote how I want you to vote, or I will use my financial resources to hurt your reelection chances. In a few cases, the financial threat is stated in public. In most, it's very easy to infer it was stated in private. 4/x
Show this thread -
The only substantial differences I can see between a crowd-funded threat to back Susan Collins' opponent if she votes for Kavanaugh and the above examples are: 1) Many people funding the threat, not a few rich individuals. 2) Liberals, rather than conservatives, are doing it. 5/x
Show this thread -
All of these are functionally bribery. Not as bad as covertly handing over a suitcase of cash that the politician uses for private goods. But still, many donations are conditional on specific votes, and politicians want the donations enough that it influences their behavior. 6/x
Show this thread -
Legally, Citizens United was correct. Regulating means to disseminate political speech is regulating political speech. But it created problems, such as more sort-of-bribery (e.g. at Susan Collins) Maybe now that a Republican is threatened, GOP will recognize those problems. (END)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.