The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

February 27, 2014

Ever wonder what it’d be like if someone protested during a Supreme Court oral argument session—and someone got it on tape? Wonder no more: here’s a video of someone doing just that in a protest against Citizens United.

20:36 // 7 months ago
April 4, 2013
We, the largely-bearded staff of SFB, are excited about this news. Also, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn occasionally sports a beard; will this PAC support his reelection if he pinkie-promises not to shave it again? source

We, the largely-bearded staff of SFB, are excited about this news. Also, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn occasionally sports a beard; will this PAC support his reelection if he pinkie-promises not to shave it again? source

14:47 // 1 year ago
November 17, 2012
Super PACs are still a bad idea. Corporations should not be able to give unlimited sums to political campaigns. It is bad for our democracy.
Bill Burton, co-founder of an Obama-supporting super PAC, Priorities USA. This is a significant question for Democrats: Should progressives who oppose the very existence of super PACs also oppose progressive super PACS? Or is the utilization of super PACS a necessary step to changing the legal framework that makes them possible? Burton seems to believes it’s the second. “Citizens United harms our country, not just the liberal cause,” he says. “I’m proud of the work we did at Priorities in this election, but this system is broken and needs reform.” source (paywall)
1:16 // 1 year ago
November 16, 2012
newsbeastlabs:

A defining characteristic of this election cycle was Super PACs and the hundreds of millions of dollars outside groups were spending to influence races. Now that it’s all over, we wanted to see which outside groups spent their money on succssful races and which did not. The result was our interactive Not-So-Super PACs: 2012’s Winners and Losers.
…

It’s a bit confusing at first, but the interactive version of this chart (behind the link) is awesome. The thickness of the lines indicate how much money was given, and the success rate of the various PACS is in ascending order on the X-axis. The take-home message? Democrats spent a lot less on super PACS this cycle, yet enjoyed a much, much higher success rate at the ballot box.

newsbeastlabs:

A defining characteristic of this election cycle was Super PACs and the hundreds of millions of dollars outside groups were spending to influence races. Now that it’s all over, we wanted to see which outside groups spent their money on succssful races and which did not. The result was our interactive Not-So-Super PACs: 2012’s Winners and Losers.

It’s a bit confusing at first, but the interactive version of this chart (behind the link) is awesome. The thickness of the lines indicate how much money was given, and the success rate of the various PACS is in ascending order on the X-axis. The take-home message? Democrats spent a lot less on super PACS this cycle, yet enjoyed a much, much higher success rate at the ballot box.

16:27 // 1 year ago
October 10, 2012
13:19 // 1 year ago
September 28, 2012

Super PACS pay a whole lot more for ad time than candidates’ campaigns

$125 the price President Obama’s campaign paid for a slot of ad time in Ohio

$900 the price a conservative super PAC paid for the same amount of ad time in the same state source

A rarely-discussed fact about super PACS: Under federal law, they’re charged a substantially higher rate for ad time than candidates’ campaigns. One implication of this is that candidates who are supported primarily by super PACS get a lot less bang for their buck than candidates who pay for ads with their own campaigns. This excellent chart, courtesy of Paul Blumenthal at Huffington Post, says it all:

Keep in mind that Florida is a must-win state for Mitt Romney, yet for all of his supposed financial advantages, he’s buying less ad time there than Obama (h/t Jon Chait).

18:27 // 2 years ago
July 19, 2012
I don’t think any of my colleagues on any cases vote the way they do for political reasons,” he said. “They vote the way they do because they have their own judicial philosophy.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia • During an interview with Piers Morgan for “Piers Morgan Live” last night, refuting claims that he was feuding with Chief Justice John Roberts. The claims surfaced following the 5-4 upholding of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Scalia, who is currently touring to promote his new book, also took time to defend the court’s infamous Citizens United decision. “I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better,” said Scalia, adding, “That’s what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from.”   source (viafollow)
17:33 // 2 years ago
June 25, 2012
The Supreme Court has overruled the Montana Supreme Court decision limiting the Citizens United ruling to the federal level. This decision makes that controversial decision also apply to the state level as well. Read it here.

The Supreme Court has overruled the Montana Supreme Court decision limiting the Citizens United ruling to the federal level. This decision makes that controversial decision also apply to the state level as well. Read it here.

10:14 // 2 years ago
March 18, 2012
The Super PACs have played a key role, unfortunately, in my view, because most of them are negative ads. They’ve driven up the unfavorables of all of the candidates and made it much more difficult, frankly, to win the election in November.
Sen. John McCain • Speaking on the 2012 presidential election, which he called “the nastiest I have ever seen.” Remember, this is coming from the guy who once was falsely accused of birthing a black child out of wedlock. So his standards are pretty high as far as nasty races go. McCain, a longtime advocate of campaign finance reform, went further, calling the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision “the worst decision the United States Supreme Court has made in many years.”
19:27 // 2 years ago
March 13, 2012

Rick Santorum wants to outlaw teleprompters, OK with corporate influence

  • now “See, I always believed that when you run for president of the United States, it should be illegal to read off a teleprompter,” Rick Santorum said over the weekend. “Because all you’re doing is reading someone else’s words to people.” This despite the fact that, um, well, Santorum probably pays someone to write his speeches for him, like most politicians do.
  • then In January, Santorum struck a different tone when discussing a Congressional plan to scale back Citizens United: “Everybody should have an opportunity, who are affected by government, to participate in the activities of the government. No one should be disenfranchised.” Does that include politicians with teleprompters? (ht imwithkanye) source

Read ShortFormBlogFollow

0:22 // 2 years ago