ZMonster

This is of course subject to whatever SCOTUS sock puppet Alito has his ghostly hand up the ass of, but the way it was intended to work was that super pacs can receive and spend limitlessly so long as there is no coordination with the candidate. Elon can't call trump and ask what trump would like the pac to do. So Elon being a right wing shit head is legal all day, so long as he doesn't do any of his right wing shit headery in connection with trump.

And yes, that would usually imply that if there is coordination then all contributions, even those in kind, are campaign contributions and must be regulated and disclosed. Which they aren't. And probably won't be. But if this case comes up in a few years, the right wing shit head chorus will cry alligator tears about the poor oppressed witch-hunted trump. FML.

52 USC 30118: Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations
Text contains those laws in effect on October 6, 2024

It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, or for any corporation whatever, or any labor organization, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election at which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, Congress are to be voted for, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices, or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section.

It's one of the few threads of campaign finance law that still exist. Things to keep in mind, in-kind contributions are still contributions. An example would be, directing your private business that is in no way affiliated with your super PAC to promote and fundraise for the candidate that you are standing on stage at a rally with. If that isn't "in connection with" then I don't know what is.

It is unbelievable to me how everyone is just walzing past the fact that a super-pac organizer attended a rally with the candidate.

Lamps were "total disasters" until they weren't. Crosswalks even. Toilets in Seattle.

There are lots of things that were "total disasters" at one point but were developed into safe reliable things. That's not a reason to abandon an endeavor entirely, but a great reason to redirect or refine it.

Also, headlines are not news, and most non-electrical engineers, let alone journalists, know jack fucking shit about electrical engineering. EEVBlog did a great few videos about solar roadways and their flaws.

FYI, the disney situation that people are referring to here is a very complicated legal situation rife with bad actors. The reporting on it was broadly mishandled by the media, so legal professionals have broken it down. It is far more nuanced than people here are making it out to be and the simple narrative that you will see getting upvoted entirely mischaracterizes what actually happened (ie happened according to both disney and the plaintiff, yes they both agree). But due to the fact that disney kind of comes out of the situation looking like - dare I say - the good guy (or at least the gooder one), people have latched onto the misinformed simplistic narrative because it requires less effort and falls into the evil corporation trope. So instead of making any claims here, because I'm exhausted from arguing with Internet babies and I have a ketamine therapy today, I encourage you to watch Legal Eagle's breakdown of the case.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that this is a complex topic that has been mishandled by the media. I work in an extremely remote location with thousands of people that might as well be flat-earthers, so being truthful is extremely important to me. And we will need honest discourse if we as a society are ever going to overcome the misinformation brainworm that US politics has put on steroids. Good luck.

The restaurant isn't suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it's okay. I'm wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.

When you are ready to move on, go for it.

No, the fact remains that there is literally no reason for Disney to have been included in the lawsuit to begin with. And the "unrelated service" that they used (on actually several occasions according to Disney's motion) contained a boilerplate arbitration agreements that literally every corporation under the sun uses. Shady as shit? Absolutely. Both parties are being shady as shit. The lawsuit only included Disney because there was never going to be a big payday without them. Nothing about the plaintiff or Disney is either credible or relevant.

Disney also does not have health inspectors in another company's kitchen, because they don't own that fucking kitchen. Bro, you are arguing with a keyboard warrior on Lemmy. Your total lack of understanding is clearly established by both the raft of legal professionals who have already demonstrated the reality as well as THE PLAINTIFFS FUCKING FILING. So by all means, reach out to the plaintiff and explain to him and his lawyer how much more you know about it. 🙄

The amount of brain worm from this whole thing is amazing to me. This is on the level of trumper shit at this point. Seeing so many people incapable of acknowledging that they misunderstood something is just crazy. Anyway, just wanted to let you know you're a good person for being patient with so many boobs.

If you go to your friend's house for dinner and they end up giving you E Coli, do you sue their landlord? Because that is the situation you are glossing over by saying:

even interpreted in the best possible light

This is very reductive of the situation according to the plaintiff himself; which means you are either insincere or incapable. Either case leaves me entirely disinterested.

Obviously I can't possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.

And that DOES make sense.

I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying "prove me wrong".

Why don't you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I'm not entertaining it.