• @givesomefucks
    link
    English
    223
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    “Endorsement” meaning the 25 45 million a month to a PAC…

    How the fuck are we not going after them for this?

    The PAC system is incredibly fucked, but outside of a handful of progressives no politicians want to admit it’s legal bribery

    • @big_slap
      link
      534 months ago

      maybe this is the straw that breaks the camels back. hoping this admission changes things

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      454 months ago

      No it’s not bribery. He changed his stance for Musk’s endorsement. Musk then exercised his free speech into a Trump PAC. There was no coordination. Besides, even if there was coordination, it was a just a gratuity after the service!

      • @squidman
        link
        284 months ago

        Just a little bit of corruption, as a treat!

          • @Fedizen
            link
            54 months ago

            Really thick, pasty corruption, generously applied.

    • @CaptainSpaceman
      cake
      link
      194 months ago

      Because they all take super PAC money and dont want the flows to stop.

      Except ofc Bernie and a handful of others

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      174 months ago

      “Endorsement” meaning the 25 million a month to a PAC…

      Oh, I can see the problem here - you thought he was giving his pro-Trump PAC $25 million. That’s just not true. $25 million? That would be crazy.

      No, no, it was $45 million.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      104 months ago

      Every ad should be a clip of Trump raging against electric cars, then the Musk tweet, then a clip of him praising electric cars. End with: do you really think he works for you?

      I’m sure you can build more ads on this theme with the millions of other things he flip flopped on when someone promised him a bag of cash.

      • @Buddahriffic
        link
        34 months ago

        That should be one ad. Another should be about him turning on every one of his supporters that he’s turned on. Trump: on your side as long as it’s still convenient for him.

    • @Guy_Fieris_Hair
      link
      74 months ago

      “We” aren’t going after them for this because they all do it, Trump just said it out loud. Welcome to American politics. This will never get fixed because the people in power stand to lose millions of dollars if it does. People will posture, pander, and pretend, but they will never get a majority willing to take the pay cut and actually fix it. It’s the a glitch in a capitalist republic.

      • @Sanctus
        link
        English
        24 months ago

        Oh it can totally be fixed. People change their tune really quick when they can’t put food in their mouths, and others change faster within close proximity to wood chippers.

        • @ericjmorey
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          The most recent group of people that acted on their emotional desires in this vain did so in support of the man who is taking money from a billionaire (hundred-billionare?) to stay in power in exchange for changing their policy position to favor the donor. This group failed and many were convicted of federal crimes.

          • @Sanctus
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            When did people attack billionaires? I’m not talking about the government.

  • @Buffalox
    link
    1154 months ago

    How is this obvious and even admitted bribery not illegal?

    • @friend_of_satan
      link
      English
      634 months ago

      In an ideal, fair, and just world, yeah, but have you been following the Supreme Court lately? This is their King we’re talking about!

      • @rayyy
        link
        34 months ago

        … have you been following the Supreme Extreme Court Court lately?

    • Swordgeek
      link
      fedilink
      324 months ago

      I’ e come to realize that sadly, legslity is irrelevant. If there are no consequences, then there’s effectively no law for rhe powerful.

      The SCOTUS ruling that they can declare the president above the law was really about shiwing they can make anyone above the law, if they wish.

      The last eight years have highlighted how the US is in fact, a caste system.

    • AmidFuror
      link
      fedilink
      124 months ago

      It’s not bribery until he actually pushes for EVs (Tesla, specifically) as President. And then it will be an official act, so he’s immune.

    • Sabata
      link
      fedilink
      64 months ago

      The supreme court got bribed into saying bribery is fine as long as you pretend it’s not a bribe.

  • Ghostalmedia
    link
    English
    954 months ago

    well known for the transactional nature of his politics

    Also known as “taking bribes.”

  • @LEDZeppelin
    link
    66
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    He bragged less than a week ago in Michigan that he is going to ban EVs just so he can pander to Michigan auto workers.

    Practically everything he says is a lie

    • @skyspydude1
      link
      84 months ago

      Which is ridiculous because most manufacturers are building multiple new factories for batteries and EVs. It’s a pretty shitty pander all things considered.

      • @ericjmorey
        link
        English
        34 months ago

        Ford recently announced their decision to use their facility built for the purpose of expanding their EV supply to instead manufacturer more ICE pick-up trucks.

        • @skyspydude1
          link
          24 months ago

          And? It still means that the push for EVs wound up creating those factories, and therefore jobs at those factories.

  • @pjwestin
    link
    444 months ago

    I could be wrong, but isn’t a blatant quid pro quo basically the only way to wind up on the wrong side of the Citizens United decision? Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that, unless a candidate was engaged in open bribery, campaign contributions constitute free speech? I could be misremembering/misinterpretating, and he’ll never face any consequences for it anyway, but it would be very funny if there was a Supreme Court ruling that said, “As long as you’re not dumb enough to admit it’s a bribe it’s not illegal,” and he still fucked that up.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      254 months ago

      The Supreme Court ruling splits a very fine hair. If you give a government official money and say “make sure my housing development goes through”, that’s a bribe and it’s illegal. If you show them money and say “I’ll give you this if my housing development goes through”, that’s a gratuity and is perfectly fine.

      Why, yes, this is a stupid as it sounds.

      • Schadrach
        link
        fedilink
        English
        44 months ago

        Wrong Supreme Court decision. They said Citizens United.

    • Schadrach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      64 months ago

      Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that, unless a candidate was engaged in open bribery, campaign contributions constitute free speech?

      The core of the CU decision is that engaging in political speech is not a campaign contribution. Even if you spend money to engage in that speech. Even if you pay some 3rd party organization to engage in that speech on your behalf, unless that 3rd party organization is operating in collusion with the actual campaign.

      Or to put it another way, if you run off a bunch of flyers supporting Kamala Harris and pass them out, that’s not a campaign contribution despite ink and paper (and your labor) not being free. If Staples agrees to print those flyers free of charge for you, Staples is not making a campaign contribution. Unless the campaign itself is involved with the process. Now, just scale that up to massive corps and political nonprofits.

      People try to describe it as “deciding money is speech and corporations are people”, but both of those are long held by law - corporations have had 1A rights for a long, long time and likewise arguments that restricting things used to engage in protected expression is in fact restricting protected expression have held for a long, long time (for example you can’t just place a $10,000,000/week tax on printing presses to silence newspapers).

      • @Spaceballstheusername
        link
        14 months ago

        But in practice what happens is people/companies make donations directly to a candidate then all of their priorities get fulfilled by the candidate even though the people that voted for the candidate don’t support the issue.

        • Schadrach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Except when we’re talking about someone like musk donating millions to a candidate, he’s not donating directly to the candidate, he’s donating to some third party who’s advertising for the benefit of the candidate but isn’t technically coordinating with the actual campaign as an end run around campaign finance limits.

          That’s the whole point of a PAC - hypothetically they exist to forward some issue but often that’s just code for a specific set of candidates for various offices.

          For example, Americans Against Murdering Babies is probably going to support GOP candidates across the board, likely emphasizing abortion. Whereas Americans For Medical Privacy is likely doing exactly the reverse.

    • @mPony
      link
      54 months ago

      a) yes

      b) maybe he’ll be held accountable for this within the course of the next 20 years

    • @Treczoks
      link
      24 months ago

      Hope and pray that the courts see it your way!

  • @Treczoks
    link
    324 months ago

    “Yes, I’m a whore. I have been bought.” – Donald T.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe
    link
    234 months ago

    For sale: 1 (one) old man with dementia, loose bowels, poor grasp on simple concepts, malignant narcissism, and a massive following of slack-jawed troglodyte voters.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        44 months ago

        Man, Toyota is gonna be pissed when they find out how much money they threw away on a charger they gave me with a $50k car.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    174 months ago

    Hard-line MAGAts wishing to publicly demonstrate their allegiance will have to start wearing flip-flops alongside their diapers and ear pillows.

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      English
      74 months ago

      Also, driving cyber trucks.

      Which would actually kinda be hilarious, if I didn’t have to share the road with those morons.

      • @RaoulDook
        link
        English
        14 months ago

        I have seen a couple of them on the highway. They look so ridiculous you have to laugh.

        It’s just like the ridiculous “future cars” we’d see in many old sci-fi movies from the 70’s and 80’s. Perhaps their visions of the future were not so wrong after all.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          English
          14 months ago

          And about as well built, too.

          (Those were typically golf carts with cardboard boxes slapped over them kit car fashion.)

  • @IsThisAnAI
    link
    3
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    That’s politics, this shouldn’t be a surprise. None of this is remotely illegal as suggested in the comments.

    • @givesomefucks
      link
      English
      114 months ago

      People are saying it should be illegal and the fact that it is legal is an issue that we should fix…

      • @IsThisAnAI
        link
        -134 months ago

        What exactly should be illegal about a politician promising policy changes, that positively affects individuals and those individuals showing their support for that politicians policy? I don’t think many of you have thought this through.

        • @givesomefucks
          link
          English
          154 months ago

          The part where it’s 45 million a month in exchange for “policy” that could make the company 100s of millions of dollars…

          But in general, that any billionaire can just pay for the government they want.

          • @IsThisAnAI
            link
            -2
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            So you want to complain about funding, I’d agree. That’s not the complaint here or what is being said should be illegal.

        • @pyre
          link
          24 months ago

          ThisIsAnAI

          yeah i can tell

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      44 months ago

      Having your position on issues for sale isn’t illegal when you’re not in office, but it’s certainly not normal politics. It’s fuckin’ the weird for a politician to openly admit they’re for sale.

      • @IsThisAnAI
        link
        -14 months ago

        So you mean to say that most politicians won’t change their positions based on their voting blocks demands?

        I hate Musk but I can’t see how any of this isnt standard fare in all of politics by definition.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          Changing policies based on what voters as a whole want is democracy. Changing based on what one voter with a lot of money demands is corruption.

  • @Etterra
    link
    14 months ago

    No shit, he don’t care. He’s been quite clear about this from the beginning.