I am in the same boat as you. I would hate to know that I spent thousands to help enshrine this petty guy's fortune and lower the bar for tech worker treatment.
Crazy on how little attention gets placed on Citizens United when this comes up. It seems like Americans would prefer the status quo of the political machine.
Not really. Citizens United was about limits on "soft money". Basically it removed any restrictions on spending by PACs on behalf of a candidate as long as the spending isn't explicitly coordinated with the candidate. Personal vs corporate spending is not really relevant.
This is incorrect. Citizens United found that the BCRA's ban on corporate independent expenditures was unconstitutional. PACs were not affected by this decision.
Super PACs — which I assume you're thinking of — would only become a thing later in the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission decision.
SBF has always had the right to spend millions on politics. FTX has not (well, it wouldn't have had it if it existed between 2004 and 2010.)
No, it was about whether Congress has the power to regulate independent political spending, specifically within the BCRA’s prescribed 30 and 60 day pre-election windows. Per Citizens United, it does not.
To most readers, wiki’s page about it appears to not paint the same picture you’re describing.
Here’s the initial synopsis:
“It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.”
Corporations and other associations shouldn’t be allowed to donate any money for political ads or political causes. My initial question was if the Citizens United case limits donations. It does by giving unlimited political spending power to most legal entities.
Ah my bad. I meant partisan political causes. I don’t know enough about this to give you a distinction. I can point to the policy. I’d like Citizens United overturned.
> Corporations like the Sierra Club? Why not?
For partisan causes I don’t think society has space for money to be that powerful. The establishment Dem and Repub parties, politicians, and outside money coming in shouldn’t be able to buy votes and mindshare via ads and marketing that cost tons of money through/with entities.
This seems very widely reported in the media, it was the feature story in The Economist this week and had multiple articles in it. Didn't a lot of other new revelations on this come out of reporting by Financial Times and Vox as well?
I was responding to the citizens united statement, not the article. Citizens United literally means money talks. The only alternative is publicly funded campaigns. Which is fine by me. But people will game that system. Might as well make it legal.
My gut feeling is that media (and other) figures are still figuring out how to deal with the cognitive dissonance between their self-perceived intelligence and the fact that the whole crypto-space is a gigantic freaking scam — which has been quite evident to many for years.
Citizens United was the right decision. Banning political campaigning by private entities just gives more power to entrenched political parties. And it's fundamentally unfair that I can't start a PAC and campaign my political goals, but the RNC and the DNC are given a free hand. Also, why can't a billionaire start a PAC and run campaign adds, but he can start a TV network and run propaganda? So, ban that too, you say. But that violates freedom of the press, which I assume you don't want to get rid of.
Everybody must be allowed to campaign, because the alternative is having politicians decide who can and who can't, and they will never do this in a way that doesn't entrench their own power.
> I just hope whoever processes severance checks is still working.
In the dotcom era, I was in the middle of a mass layoff. At the meeting, "everybody go back to your desk and dial extension 1234, and you will get a message with your employment status, instructions and next steps".
PBX crashed.
PBX took a while being brought back up because, well, the people responsible for supporting it wanted to find out whether _they_ were some of those laid off before deciding whether they wanted to bring it back up.
I don’t want to see this movie. So far, it’s an entitled and mentally-ill man-child learning that all the praise he’s gotten in recent years is for other people’s work, and he’s not a domain expert on every type of technology.
I think we all deal with enough of that on a small scale to be sick of it.
They could have settled down, collected their thoughts.
This “rant” literally provides evidence the poster is a crappy communicator. Are we sure they’re not blaming everyone else out of frustration with their own shortcomings?
I suggest they read some Camus and consider in a relative world not everyone is composed of the same statefulness they are.
Ranting isn't inherently bad or good communication, whether or not you like the rant. I believe the thing the op is talking about is really incompetent communication that you see all the time in tech e.g., far worse than you're thinking you see here.
