Bloomberg Pays Fines for 32,000 Felons in Move to Bypass GOP Voter Suppression Obstacles

[Dalisclock]

Sooooo.... Not going to comment on how a billionaire raised this money instead of using his own? Or how "Democrats desperate for votes, spend millions of dollars to get criminals off the hook in bid for more." Is pretty bad optics?

Trump asks his supporters for money constantly despite being "INCREDIBLY FABULOUSLY RICH!". That's not even getting into recent allegations he's been diverting cash from his campaign to pay for his legal fees(which is probably illegal).

Fuck, he bilked millions out of the military(after depriving thousands of a paycheck for a month out of spite) to pay for his stupid wall rather then pony up his own money.

And do we want to talk about the optics of Trump helping his buddies(Roger Stone, for example) avoid jail time? Pardoning people who destroyed federal property(Ammon Bundy and his ilk)?

Or it okay when Trump does it?

That's the fun part of Whataboutism. It goes both ways.

 

[Houseman]

Judge Robert Hinkle held an eight-day trial and found that the "overwhelming majority" of felons would be too poor to pay the amounts owed, if they could find out what they owed. Hinkle said that the pay-to-play law had created "an administrative nightmare" and that it also amounted to an unconstitutional tax on voting.

If you read it the first time, how could you think that is in any way acceptable?

Why should I just embrace this ONE judge's opinion, when a higher court voted 6-4 against it? Why should I ignore those other 6 judges?
I don't often allow myself to be swayed by the first opinion I hear.

I'm currently reading the arguments and opinions from the appeal court. They can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012003.enb.pdf

One persuasive argument I've found so far is that "this is not a tax, it's a punishment. Taxes are for lawful activities. For example, if you don't want health insurance, you have not done anything illegal, you do not go to jail or have to appear before a court, you just get taxed more, and then you have fully complied with the law. This is a tax. By contrast, a fine based on possessing illegal drugs is not similar."

 

[lil devils x]

Trump asks his supporters for money constantly despite being "INCREDIBLY FABULOUSLY RICH!". That's not even getting into recent allegations he's been diverting cash from his campaign to pay for his legal fees(which is probably illegal).

Fuck, he bilked millions out of the military(after depriving thousands of a paycheck for a month out of spite) to pay for his stupid wall rather then pony up his own money.

And do we want to talk about the optics of Trump helping his buddies(Roger Stone, for example) avoid jail time? Pardoning people who destroyed federal property(Ammon Bundy and his ilk)?

Or it okay when Trump does it?

That's the fun part of Whataboutism. It goes both ways.

And you didn't even bring up how many times misused campaign funds or he promised money for charity, or took money from a children's cancer charity...

Always have to add the links so they don't claim you "are making this shit up". But even then they just screech " fake news" when presented with facts.

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

Donald Trump is one of the least charitable billionaires in the world. Eric Trump is far more altruistic. In a clash of values, the president directed hundreds of thousands of dollars from his son's kids-with-cancer foundation into his company coffers.

www.forbes.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

Donald Trump is ordered to pay $2 million for charity fraud

It's the final settlement in a case the president vowed never to settle.

www.motherjones.com

How Donald Trump Shifted $1.1M Of Campaign-Donor Money Into His Business

The richest president in American history has turned $1.1 million from donors across the country into revenue for himself.

www.forbes.com

 

[Dalisclock]

And you didn't even bring up how many times misused campaign funds or he promised money for charity, or took money from a children's cancer charity...

Do you have a source for the Cancer charity thing? I believe it(because Trump is the kind of person who would do something so shitty) but I'd like to see the source on it.

 

[lil devils x]

Why should I just embrace this ONE judge's opinion, when a higher court voted 6-4 against it? Why should I ignore those other 6 judges?
I don't often allow myself to be swayed by the first opinion I hear.

I'm currently reading the arguments and opinions from the appeal court. They can be found here: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202012003.enb.pdf

One persuasive argument I've found so far is that "this is not a tax, it's a punishment. Taxes are for lawful activities. For example, if you don't want health insurance, you have not done anything illegal, you do not go to jail or have to appear before a court, you just get taxed more, and then you have fully complied with the law. This is a tax. By contrast, a fine based on possessing illegal drugs is not similar."

You should ignore those judges because they were appointed by Trump to intentionally undermine the spirit of the law. They are ruling to undermine a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that was added by 2/3 the electorate. The people didn't say they had to pay fines to vote, that was added JUST to stop them from voting.

 

[lil devils x]

Do you have a source for the Cancer charity thing? I believe it(because Trump is the kind of person who would do something so shitty) but I'd like to see the source on it.

Yea I already edited to add the cancer charity thing.

 

[Houseman]

You should ignore those judges because they were appointed by Trump to intentionally undermine the spirit of the law.

Ah yes, the "orange man bad" argument again. I should have expected that, really.

 

[lil devils x]

The decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But it virtually guarantees that the estimated 800,000 people with felony convictions in Florida who owe fines, fees or restitution to victims will not be allowed to vote in the November election.

The American Civil Liberties and other groups representing the 17 Floridians who sued DeSantis and one of his appointees, Florida Secretary of State Laurel Lee, denounced the court’s decision.

“This decision is wrong and is completely contrary to the words and spirit of our Constitution,” said Nancy Abudu, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Desmond Meade, who led the effort to pass Amendment 4 in 2018, called the decision “a blow to democracy and to the hundreds of thousands of returning citizens across Florida.”

Approved by nearly two-thirds of Florida voters in 2018, Amendment 4 restored the right to vote to nearly all people with felony convictions who completed “all terms” of their sentence.

Florida felons lose voting rights case in federal appeals court

The 6-4 decision virtually ensures that people with felony convictions who owe court costs will be locked out of the November election.

www.tampabay.com

They won't even know the amounts of their fines for like 6 years in some cases. This was 100% intended to undermine the 2/3 of the electorate who voted for them to be able to vote.

 

[lil devils x]

Ah yes, the "orange man bad" argument again. I should have expected that, really.

Look at who he appointed. Trump appointed them because THEY were bad.. Not just Trump though DeSantis was worse. He appointed judges to rule that Banks didn't have to pay the legal fees of the people they illegally tried to foreclose on and that cities couldn't raise their own minimum wage. You have to be seriously evil to want to attack your own people like that. That isn't representing the people, that is actively harming them.

The people didn't amend their constitution so they could deny 80% of who it was supposed to apply to would be prevented from voting anyhow.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Trump asks his supporters for money constantly despite being "INCREDIBLY FABULOUSLY RICH!". That's not even getting into recent allegations he's been diverting cash from his campaign to pay for his legal fees(which is probably illegal).

Fuck, he bilked millions out of the military(after depriving thousands of a paycheck for a month out of spite) to pay for his stupid wall rather then pony up his own money.

And do we want to talk about the optics of Trump helping his buddies(Roger Stone, for example) avoid jail time? Pardoning people who destroyed federal property(Ammon Bundy and his ilk)?

Or it okay when Trump does it?

That's the fun part of Whataboutism. It goes both ways.

No. I'm asking why it's now ok when an old rich white guy doesn't use his actual money for something just because hes a Democrat.

 

[Houseman]

Another interesting argument I've found from reading the actual opinions of the judges is that: "It's not a violation of the constitution to be turned away from the polls if you can't pay the cost associated with acquiring valid identification. This is not a "tax" either, even though there is a direct relation between handing over money and acquiring valid identification."

Also "It's not a violation to deny felons the right to vote when their crime is refusing to pay taxes"

There are so many interesting arguments in there if one only takes the time to look and doesn't just stick their fingers in their ears and say "LALALA ORANGE MAN BAD, BIASED JUDGES UNDERMINING THE CONSTITUTION".

Y'know, when you start seeing human beings as human beings and not comic-book villains.

 

[lil devils x]

No. I'm asking why it's now ok when an old rich white guy doesn't use his actual money for something just because hes a Democrat.

DO you really think he didn't donate any money himself too? LOL

This reminds me of when people didn't realize that Clinton donated a crap ton of money to their own foundation. Just because they didn't specify in the article how much Bloomberg donated himself doesn't mean he didn't. We don't find that out though until later when they post their financials on charity navigator. Most people don't go talking about how much people individually donated when they dump a large sum of combined money into another charity like this. They just say " hooray we did it together" individual donations are broken down in their financials however for the nosey.

 

[lil devils x]

Another interesting argument I've found from reading the actual opinions of the judges is that: "It's not a violation of the constitution to be turned away from the polls if you can't pay the cost associated with acquiring valid identification. This is not a "tax" either, even though there is a direct relation between handing over money and acquiring valid identification."

Also "It's not a violation to deny felons the right to vote when their crime is refusing to pay taxes"

There are so many interesting arguments in there if one only takes the time to look and doesn't just stick their fingers in their ears and say "LALALA ORANGE MAN BAD, BIASED JUDGES UNDERMINING THE CONSTITUTION".

Y'know, when you start seeing human beings as human beings and not comic-book villains.

Except they won't even know what fines they have to pay for like 6 years so no way they can even pay them..
Maybe they should just have another amendment then and see what the people have to say about it and solve it once and for all? That way they can understand precisely what the voters intended right? It is STILL being appealed btw. If the voters intended for their amendment to be undermined, let them do it themselves.

 

[Dalisclock]

And you didn't even bring up how many times misused campaign funds or he promised money for charity, or took money from a children's cancer charity...

Always have to add the links so they don't claim you "are making this shit up". But even then they just screech " fake news" when presented with facts.

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

Donald Trump is one of the least charitable billionaires in the world. Eric Trump is far more altruistic. In a clash of values, the president directed hundreds of thousands of dollars from his son's kids-with-cancer foundation into his company coffers.

www.forbes.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html

Donald Trump is ordered to pay $2 million for charity fraud

It's the final settlement in a case the president vowed never to settle.

www.motherjones.com

How Donald Trump Shifted $1.1M Of Campaign-Donor Money Into His Business

The richest president in American history has turned $1.1 million from donors across the country into revenue for himself.

www.forbes.com

Which sadly is pretty much in line with how he's been funneling funds into his own pockets by charging the government to use his resorts and businesses, because he has them use said businesses and resorts.

And his buddies in the Senate don't give a flying fuck.

 

[lil devils x]

Which sadly is pretty much in line with how he's been funneling funds into his own pockets by charging the government to use his resorts and businesses, because he has them use said businesses and resorts.

And his buddies in the Senate don't give a flying fuck.

No of course they don't care because they are just as corrupt as he is. He can loot as much as he wants as long as they can too!

 

[Houseman]

Except they won't even know what fines they have to pay for like 6 years so no way they can even pay them..

No, the article says that creating a centralized system for paying fines would take 6 years.
People have, do, and will continue to pay fines without such a system.

Just because the system isn't "fast enough" or "organized enough" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. For example, if the phone lines are busy, preventing you from getting valid voter ID in time to vote, that's not unconstitutional. If there's a traffic jam or your car breaks down, preventing you from getting to the polling site, that's not unconstitutional.

 

[Dalisclock]

No. I'm asking why it's now ok when an old rich white guy doesn't use his actual money for something just because hes a Democrat.

What country is Bloomberg the president of?

Also, I have no love for Bloomberg either, I'm just saying Republicans have no fucking right to call corruption if they're going to ignore Trump's shit. Something about glass houses and throwing rocks.

Fuck, I'd love the right to hold Trump to anywhere near the same standard they held Hillary too. BUT HER EMAILS......

 

[lil devils x]

No, the article says that creating a centralized system for paying fines would take 6 years.
People have, do, and will continue to pay fines without such a system.

Just because the system isn't "fast enough" or "organized enough" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. For example, if the phone lines are busy, preventing you from getting valid voter ID in time to vote, that's not unconstitutional. If there's a traffic jam or your car breaks down, preventing you from getting to the polling site, that's not unconstitutional.

Unless they just let the people decide whether or not they have to pay these fine to vote and then it very well would be ruled unconstitutional. I am sure the people didn't go through the trouble to add a constitutional amendment to have it not apply to 80% of those it was intended to. Let the people decide if it is constitutional or not rather than go and undermine their decision after the fact and not allow them to have a say in the matter. I am sure they would gladly do so considering. It was the people's amendment to amend, not congress to undermine. If the fines stipulation wasn't added AFTER the people passed it, this would be a different matter. The state legislature didn't have enough votes to amend their amendment, but did so anyways.

 

[SilentPony]

You know what Bloomberg should do with his money? BUY FOX NEWS. Hostile takeover if need be. Imagine how hard it would be for conservatives to keep their hate boners going when Fox isn't lying to them all the time.

 

[Houseman]

Let the people decide if it is constitutional or not

How would that work? For every matter that usually goes to the courts, would there be a vote on it to decide whether or not it's unconstitutional?