Dismayed at the decline of brickmaking skills, Sam is forced to run for office on a ticket based on improving the quality of American bricks. Instead of protectionism, he advocates improvements to international brickmaking standards, both for tighter tolerances and for greater compliance enforced by the brick police. Sam will be the chief of the brick police, a job he has always dreamed of, I assume.
I wrote a paper on this a while back. Another thing he doesn't mention, if I remember correctly, is that if you are a shareholder of a company that gives money to a super PAC, that company does not need to disclose that. Nor to the rest of the public, giving big corporations an easy way to control politics in their favor, rather than ours.
Just wanna clarify at 1:05 that they weren’t approving super PACs. They had existed before, and the Citizens United decision just upheld their legality (conditionally)
I would just like to thank you for using examples from both parties. It would have been extremely easy, with a topic like this, to cherry-pick and make it seem like it's really only one side that heavily utilizes these tricks, and I highly respect you for not falling for the temptation to do so.
Both parties are pro-corporate. On the topic of campaign finance both are terrible... for major candidates. But there's an important difference when you look at the candidates that don't have super PACs. The kind of candidates that would be in their own party if the USA wasn't a first-past-the-post voting system.
@@theexcaliburone5933 It's not illegal. The worst that could happen is you'd waste your vote because Sam 1. is obviously not going to win and 2. isn't registered as a write-in candidate
That's like trying to forbid high schoolers from snogging in restroom stalls. If they can't do it in private, they'll just do it in public! Now everyone can see that they're doing it, but no one can really stop them from accomplishing their goal. /s
Can we do like they do in England where Political Candidates are only allowed a set amount dolled out by the gov't and advertising is extremely limited, PAC's are not allowed to exist, and debating only happens in the weeks immediately before election so that everyone running has equal and fair opportunity of winning, rather than it being a game about who has the bigger wallet.
@@ashaffold Communism is an economic theory, like Capitalism, like Socialism. Our political system is a Democratic Republic, but you can have heavily skewed socialist state that is Democratic Republic, and you can have a highly capitalistic state that is also Democratic Republic. Last I checked, the UK's system for electing officials to office is not part of a single economic or political theory. It is like how your taxes pay for any other government program, like the CIA, the FBI, Public Schools, Firefighters, Local Police, etc. (Also, these public services that government offers for FREE, paid for by taxes is thanks to Socialism, just to keep that in mind.) But instead of having a multimillionaire running for office and winning simply because they have money to waste, by making a government fund for running candidates, you are now making it so that someone's wealth is no longer a factor in determining electoral outcomes. You as a voter will now have to actually care about what a candidates running platform is, and THEY will also have to make a platform to run with, rather than just going "MAGA MAGA MAGA" without really defining what that means for people. It forces both the candidates and the voters to care more about who they are electing and why. So it prevents candidates from BS'ing their way into office, which I would think most everyone would want. Wouldn't you agree that having a politician who actually care for the position more than just the title or the money it would make them would be a good thing right? Politicians are like underwear, you should change them often so they don't get stale.
The problem, of course, is that breaking the rules leads to 0 consequences. It was proven by the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave broke the rules in the EU Referendum, and precisely nothing was done about it.
@@MuchWhittering this doesn't surprise me. Like....the rules are more to keep honest people honest and be an attempt to level things as much as possible. The US politics cycle is so far out of whack though. Like, it is now less about the sort of platform you have, or the things you want to change, and it has turned into a mud throwing contest to some degree and become more about who has the most money to spend on ads rather than having good values, looking out for your constituents, etc. Some people still do vote for their constituents in Congress, but it is so much fewer and far between, so many are more interested in pushing their personal ideals rather than looking at what their people want. Like no system is perfect, it just feels the US system is just so prone to being abused because of the lack of regulation on it.
Thank you for explaining this! I'm not American but I have heard a lot about PACs and super PACs for years and I have had literally no idea what they were or why they were. Now I know! Incredible! Let's see what information about my own country's politics this replaces in my head :)
translating all HAI video titles to toki pona #1: jan pi wile lawa li ken weka e nasin lawa pi mani ona kepeken pali lili tan seme (why people who wish to lead can remove the rules regarding their money easily)
I always wondered how the super PAC stuff worked. I sort of just assumed that it was somehow not illegal to tell them to spend money on you, but the whole red box thing is pretty crazy. I'm definitely going to be looking out for those now.
I don't fathom how infinite corporate money/money from superpac is protected by first amendment, when any individual person has a limit. If corporations are people they must at least be bound to the same restrictions as one.
The reasoning is that a superpac isn't "coordinating with a candidate", so therefore, they can't possibly be held to legal limits for campaign contributions since they're not associated with or giving to a campaign. .... The fact that they clearly are, and that it's insane to pretend otherwise is exactly what people were suggesting was the problem with Citizens United. When the government attempted to actually enforce the "no collaboration" rule it turned into a massive political scandal that conservatives especially still tend to accuse the Obama administration of malfeasance. The point of Citizens United was explicitly to remove these types of checks and controls to unlimited campaign finance. The "personal limits" are just because technically giant bags of unlimited money directly to a campaign looks bad and the only people stupid enough to do it that openly are individuals like George Santos. (Or whatever his actual name is.... I wish that were a joke)
I know I am a bit late, but that wouldn't work. Both PACs and political candidates have to make public statements, it is a core part of their respective functions. So, since their statements are public, it is impossible to prevent each of them from reading the other party's public statements, and "reacting to the situation." I mean, regarding the "redbox" stuff that Sam talked about, in Canada, we don't have PACs or anything like them, but it is still common to see politicians issue statements like "I want to show young people XYZ" or "I want to say to new Canadians that ABC," because that is just a legitimately useful way to communicate your message to a particular group. Likewise, it is very common for various newspapers and polling agencies to put out analysis articles saying that "if candidate X wants to win, they need to focus on X message and Y demographic, and tone down their focus on Z, because it isn't helping them." It would be difficult to the point of impossibility to legally distinguish between indirect communication and legitimate advocacy/campaigning/journalism. And, if you are willing to violate the 1st Amendment to the point of hamstringing a candidate in an election from campaigning, you would be better off just banning PACs in the first place, because it would be simultaneously more effective and less of a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Honestly, it sucks but it kind of makes sense. You could theoretically be asking "hey, can someone with deep pockets get my message out there for nothing in return?" and, on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with it. The fact that it's a BUSINESS MODEL though and borderline money-laundering is the issue.
Also just plain cash. One time a candidate I was working for received literally a bag of cash at our office from some random guy and we spent it on theme park tickets 🤣
@@jackroutledge352 Did the candidate know the guy? Oh, look here's an anonymous donation for ads. Forget that, theme park tickets! This is how you make the FEC happy.
The problem with campaign finance laws is that because the government can pick economic winners and losers, there are many people with money and a keen interest in effecting government policies. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, Life (and money) will find a way. But I think there is actually a much deeper problem with these laws. They operate from the premise that it is better for a candidate to fund their campaigns with lots of small donations from lots of people as opposed to a few large donations from a few (or a single) donors. But in the best tradition of unintended consequences, I think the emphasis on small-dollar donations is only exacerbating some of the worst things about our politics today. A political party is incentivized to elect candidates that support its platform. In order to enact that platform, that party needs to win majorities in Congress and win the presidency. But the incentives for individual candidates can be different. For example, let's look at the three most widely respected members of Congress, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and George Santos. 20 years ago, these dingbats would probably not have been electable. Major donors want to back winners and would have found more stable candidates to back. But these days, the more outrageous the three stooges behave, the more appearances they make on Fox News, and the more money they can raise from small-dollar donations on social media. Immediately after surrendering to federal authorities, Santos sent out fundraising emails. The age of social media has eliminated the gatekeepers from both the media and political candidates. I am not saying we should go back to the days of Boss Tweed's political machine, but we could certainly do with a few more gatekeepers. I think we would be much better off removing the limits on political donations but requiring all donations over $100 be disclosed on a public-facing website within 24 hours of their receipt. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If Peter Thiel or George Soros want to contribute $100 million to a candidate, let them. Just make sure voters know about it and let them decide if it matters to their vote. Small-dollar donations will still be a thing, but maybe some larger donations will help a more mainstream candidate defeat Marjorie Taylor Green and her Jewish space lasers.
I remember Stephen Colbert Super PAC he created on his show "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central back in 2012! I still miss his character and Jon Stewart almost every other day!
And because of that, corporations can spend as much money as they want on political advertising! All a candidate has to do is give a company a good enough incentive to support him...
This all makes complete sense. The first amendment guarantees the right of rich people to communicate the reasons why their candidate is the best choice. The point of campaign finance laws is to prevent bribery. All these "loopholes" are methods of accomplishing the first very efficiently. None of them enable the second. That is not a loophole. That is the system working as intended. In fact, since soft money has been allowed to go crazy, there is very little evidence that bribery has increased. If anything, elections have become more nationalized, and bribery has become harder.
Here's an idea: get money out of politics completely. Make PACs and Superpacs illegal, make lobbying illegal, make corporations getting tax rebates and bailouts illegal. If candidates need funding for campaigns, set up a universal campaign fund where people can give money to that fund, and then all candidates draw equally from that fund.
Back in high school in 2007, I remember a huge issue being Super-PACs and campaign financing. It was basically the Reps taking advantage and the Dems fighting against it. Fast-forward today, and no one gives two fingers about it.
That's because the Supreme Court essentially banned the government from doing anything to regulate super PACs in a 2010 case called Citizens United. The Dems can't do anything about it now, and if they just stuck to their moral principles they'd be outspent by the GOP 100 to 1 in every race. Making it sound like the Dems are hypocrites is just wrong.
I just realized, Bruno Gianelli is a character from The West Wing....who basically helps the president win his relection campaign, then works for Arnie Vinneck in the last season.
To be fair, if there is a loophole as big as a door AND you need to use it because the guys you believe is killing the country are also using it, then can someone really blame you for using it?
Because laws are only relevant if they make you change what you were going to do. And since there was a reason you were going to do that thing in the first place, and that reason has not typically gone away due to the law, you'll see if you can figure out how to do it anyway. This isn't an American thing. It's a human thing.
By definition it is not a "loophole" if it is written into the law. Logically speaking, the bill likely would not have been passed into law had it not been for the alleged "loophole". Instead of using imprecise terms it might make more sense to just point out that the law was never intended to be effective in the first place.
I don't know about your eligibility but there should be a Sam for something. The main parties have locked themselves in to thinking that only a candidate who's hated by the majority can win.
1) Guilty. Even in public, though, only when I'm alone, like, say, at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere. 2) Guilty. Though more knees than feet. Can't in really handy during the pandemic. All those doors opened and closed without having to touch them 3) Guilty. Also, shadowboxing in front of the mirror 4) Not guilty. Mostly. 5) Not guilty. But I don't have stairs where I live, so most stairs are in public. 4)
Not really. Politicians like getting donations, but usually donors give to people who already agree with them, instead of trying to buy people. And there's plenty of small businesses and wealthy individuals who give big sums too - car dealers, for example, are often massive donors by the standards of local campaigns, but they're not all that big as businesses go.
Voters should know that Sam from Wendover will take this country in a positive direction by implementing subsidies for rail travel and masonry.
*and planes, probably
I think Half As President is better!
@@redbirb Half a President is better then one President!
I'm in.
Planes is more his thing. 😄
I love that, even after the brick special videos, HAI is still committed to the bricks
I wonder if when he gets into office if we'll all get free bricks
@@redbirb If I don't get a free brick, Sam WILL get a free brick. This is a threat.
That brick ad killed me 😁
Once more the funny internet man blesses us with confused happiness for a few minutes
Npc
yes
@@BentleyBohemian_96 “Npc” 🤓
0:48 4u😊1😮😊😮1
Glad you’re announcing your political campaign for 2024 at last. I support your plan for universal Corollas
A brick in every pot.
Dismayed at the decline of brickmaking skills, Sam is forced to run for office on a ticket based on improving the quality of American bricks. Instead of protectionism, he advocates improvements to international brickmaking standards, both for tighter tolerances and for greater compliance enforced by the brick police. Sam will be the chief of the brick police, a job he has always dreamed of, I assume.
Can he run for 2028? In 2024 trump will be back in office
As long as it's not the Corolla Cross
@@FlyingExplorer2022 trump wont make it to 2024 he said HAI can do 2024
I wrote a paper on this a while back. Another thing he doesn't mention, if I remember correctly, is that if you are a shareholder of a company that gives money to a super PAC, that company does not need to disclose that. Nor to the rest of the public, giving big corporations an easy way to control politics in their favor, rather than ours.
That's horrible and shady.
The backronym at 2:09 is absolutely perfect. Go off, Sam and the rest of the HAI staff.
Just wanna clarify at 1:05 that they weren’t approving super PACs. They had existed before, and the Citizens United decision just upheld their legality (conditionally)
This is USA, so legal + "frowny face" = good enough
4:48 nice to see President Bartlet and Senator Vinicks consulting guy is still getting work
I would just like to thank you for using examples from both parties. It would have been extremely easy, with a topic like this, to cherry-pick and make it seem like it's really only one side that heavily utilizes these tricks, and I highly respect you for not falling for the temptation to do so.
Republicans and Democrats; two sides of the same coin.
Yea it’s almost like that’s why we watch Sam 😂
@@oliver7496 Spelling: you put an extra "i" in your last word.
I wish I could like this comment twice. Hopefully my reply will help you with the algorithm
Both parties are pro-corporate. On the topic of campaign finance both are terrible... for major candidates. But there's an important difference when you look at the candidates that don't have super PACs. The kind of candidates that would be in their own party if the USA wasn't a first-past-the-post voting system.
Careful Sam, if I see your name on a ballot I'm voting for you.
You can vote for him even if his name isn't on the ballot. Submit his name as a write-in candidate.
@@imveryangryitsnotbutter PSA: please do not do this
Also your name is amazing
@@theexcaliburone5933
Why not?
@@theexcaliburone5933 It's not illegal. The worst that could happen is you'd waste your vote because Sam 1. is obviously not going to win and 2. isn't registered as a write-in candidate
@@osdever I’m not saying it’s illegal, and yeah go ahead of you want, I’m just overly terrified of the concept of splitting the vote
Political corruption is a constitutional right
Can never expect anyone to self govern with this kind of power. They will never vote against there own interests.
Fr
You can thank the supreme court
It's the only thing accomplished when in power
No political corruption is a constitutional right
The "all comms should be publicly available" one at least ends up causing some transparency
That's like trying to forbid high schoolers from snogging in restroom stalls. If they can't do it in private, they'll just do it in public! Now everyone can see that they're doing it, but no one can really stop them from accomplishing their goal. /s
@@InventorZahranWe should all at least see who's fucking us over and how
Going from true love to campaign finance, only on an hai video
Bruno Gianelli is a great West Wing Easter Egg
Joey Lucas would've been a better one tho
Can we do like they do in England where Political Candidates are only allowed a set amount dolled out by the gov't and advertising is extremely limited, PAC's are not allowed to exist, and debating only happens in the weeks immediately before election so that everyone running has equal and fair opportunity of winning, rather than it being a game about who has the bigger wallet.
Dunno, sounds like communism to me!
@@ashaffold Communism is an economic theory, like Capitalism, like Socialism. Our political system is a Democratic Republic, but you can have heavily skewed socialist state that is Democratic Republic, and you can have a highly capitalistic state that is also Democratic Republic.
Last I checked, the UK's system for electing officials to office is not part of a single economic or political theory. It is like how your taxes pay for any other government program, like the CIA, the FBI, Public Schools, Firefighters, Local Police, etc. (Also, these public services that government offers for FREE, paid for by taxes is thanks to Socialism, just to keep that in mind.)
But instead of having a multimillionaire running for office and winning simply because they have money to waste, by making a government fund for running candidates, you are now making it so that someone's wealth is no longer a factor in determining electoral outcomes. You as a voter will now have to actually care about what a candidates running platform is, and THEY will also have to make a platform to run with, rather than just going "MAGA MAGA MAGA" without really defining what that means for people. It forces both the candidates and the voters to care more about who they are electing and why.
So it prevents candidates from BS'ing their way into office, which I would think most everyone would want. Wouldn't you agree that having a politician who actually care for the position more than just the title or the money it would make them would be a good thing right? Politicians are like underwear, you should change them often so they don't get stale.
The problem, of course, is that breaking the rules leads to 0 consequences. It was proven by the Electoral Commission that Vote Leave broke the rules in the EU Referendum, and precisely nothing was done about it.
@@MuchWhittering this doesn't surprise me. Like....the rules are more to keep honest people honest and be an attempt to level things as much as possible. The US politics cycle is so far out of whack though. Like, it is now less about the sort of platform you have, or the things you want to change, and it has turned into a mud throwing contest to some degree and become more about who has the most money to spend on ads rather than having good values, looking out for your constituents, etc. Some people still do vote for their constituents in Congress, but it is so much fewer and far between, so many are more interested in pushing their personal ideals rather than looking at what their people want.
Like no system is perfect, it just feels the US system is just so prone to being abused because of the lack of regulation on it.
@@AdleisioCefnforDolphingoddman you missed the joke hard as hell
Cool, now I hate politicians even more that I did five and a half minutes ago.
Politicians are just citizens with higher ambitions
@@vyros.3234 But they usually serve the interests of the rich
Thank you for explaining this! I'm not American but I have heard a lot about PACs and super PACs for years and I have had literally no idea what they were or why they were. Now I know! Incredible! Let's see what information about my own country's politics this replaces in my head :)
HAI is the channel that answers that one random question you searched up for then answers questions you never asked for the rest of time
HAI be like „you know what lets expose the goverment” every month
"Joe money, Joe problems" Still laughing
00:15 the love between an American political candidate and the superpajwbdiwbw. Thank god for subs
translating all HAI video titles to toki pona #1:
jan pi wile lawa li ken weka e nasin lawa pi mani ona kepeken pali lili tan seme
(why people who wish to lead can remove the rules regarding their money easily)
The lawmaker from queens/long island chooses to differ. Multi-level-marketing.
I liked the ad transition and callback so much I watched the ad just to give you your due. Good job Sam.
5:30 HAD ME ROLLING LMAOOOO
Royal Family catching strays from HAI
Bruno from West Wing. Good reference there
I always wondered how the super PAC stuff worked. I sort of just assumed that it was somehow not illegal to tell them to spend money on you, but the whole red box thing is pretty crazy. I'm definitely going to be looking out for those now.
What I hate is that because we have this in HAI we're not going to get a full WP effort.
That last jab at Charles with Diana was peak Publically Available Internet Material
Using tweets to get around the candidate and PAC not communicating law was discussed in The Good Wife.
I don't fathom how infinite corporate money/money from superpac is protected by first amendment, when any individual person has a limit. If corporations are people they must at least be bound to the same restrictions as one.
The reasoning is that a superpac isn't "coordinating with a candidate", so therefore, they can't possibly be held to legal limits for campaign contributions since they're not associated with or giving to a campaign.
.... The fact that they clearly are, and that it's insane to pretend otherwise is exactly what people were suggesting was the problem with Citizens United. When the government attempted to actually enforce the "no collaboration" rule it turned into a massive political scandal that conservatives especially still tend to accuse the Obama administration of malfeasance.
The point of Citizens United was explicitly to remove these types of checks and controls to unlimited campaign finance. The "personal limits" are just because technically giant bags of unlimited money directly to a campaign looks bad and the only people stupid enough to do it that openly are individuals like George Santos. (Or whatever his actual name is.... I wish that were a joke)
So the FEC could change the rule wording from “directly communicate” to “directly or indirectly communicate” and everything would be solved?
I know I am a bit late, but that wouldn't work.
Both PACs and political candidates have to make public statements, it is a core part of their respective functions. So, since their statements are public, it is impossible to prevent each of them from reading the other party's public statements, and "reacting to the situation."
I mean, regarding the "redbox" stuff that Sam talked about, in Canada, we don't have PACs or anything like them, but it is still common to see politicians issue statements like "I want to show young people XYZ" or "I want to say to new Canadians that ABC," because that is just a legitimately useful way to communicate your message to a particular group. Likewise, it is very common for various newspapers and polling agencies to put out analysis articles saying that "if candidate X wants to win, they need to focus on X message and Y demographic, and tone down their focus on Z, because it isn't helping them."
It would be difficult to the point of impossibility to legally distinguish between indirect communication and legitimate advocacy/campaigning/journalism. And, if you are willing to violate the 1st Amendment to the point of hamstringing a candidate in an election from campaigning, you would be better off just banning PACs in the first place, because it would be simultaneously more effective and less of a violation of the 1st Amendment.
My favorite crater is Lake Manicouagan. I can't wait to see more Lake Manicouagan on Nebula
Honestly, it sucks but it kind of makes sense. You could theoretically be asking "hey, can someone with deep pockets get my message out there for nothing in return?" and, on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with it. The fact that it's a BUSINESS MODEL though and borderline money-laundering is the issue.
Heh, I didn't notice that "track record" was a pun until you pointed it out. Well played.
I mean that's one way to encourage transparency
Also just plain cash. One time a candidate I was working for received literally a bag of cash at our office from some random guy and we spent it on theme park tickets 🤣
Seriously? And you carried on working for him? You can't see corruption when it's handed to you in a brown paper bag?
@@jackroutledge352 It's legal as long as you're dressed up as a banana and a strawberry.
Who said it was a guy? Lol
@@jackroutledge352 why should they care
@@jackroutledge352 Did the candidate know the guy? Oh, look here's an anonymous donation for ads. Forget that, theme park tickets! This is how you make the FEC happy.
We should get rid of super pacs altogether, no third party ads, and cap what campaigns can spend so the most money doesn’t just win for being rich.
The problem with campaign finance laws is that because the government can pick economic winners and losers, there are many people with money and a keen interest in effecting government policies. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, Life (and money) will find a way. But I think there is actually a much deeper problem with these laws. They operate from the premise that it is better for a candidate to fund their campaigns with lots of small donations from lots of people as opposed to a few large donations from a few (or a single) donors. But in the best tradition of unintended consequences, I think the emphasis on small-dollar donations is only exacerbating some of the worst things about our politics today.
A political party is incentivized to elect candidates that support its platform. In order to enact that platform, that party needs to win majorities in Congress and win the presidency. But the incentives for individual candidates can be different. For example, let's look at the three most widely respected members of Congress, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and George Santos. 20 years ago, these dingbats would probably not have been electable. Major donors want to back winners and would have found more stable candidates to back. But these days, the more outrageous the three stooges behave, the more appearances they make on Fox News, and the more money they can raise from small-dollar donations on social media. Immediately after surrendering to federal authorities, Santos sent out fundraising emails.
The age of social media has eliminated the gatekeepers from both the media and political candidates. I am not saying we should go back to the days of Boss Tweed's political machine, but we could certainly do with a few more gatekeepers. I think we would be much better off removing the limits on political donations but requiring all donations over $100 be disclosed on a public-facing website within 24 hours of their receipt. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If Peter Thiel or George Soros want to contribute $100 million to a candidate, let them. Just make sure voters know about it and let them decide if it matters to their vote. Small-dollar donations will still be a thing, but maybe some larger donations will help a more mainstream candidate defeat Marjorie Taylor Green and her Jewish space lasers.
Sounds like a losing battle to me. Better idea: out-crazy the crazy.
The ending was the best! 😂
I remember Stephen Colbert Super PAC he created on his show "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central back in 2012! I still miss his character and Jon Stewart almost every other day!
I think i caught your West WIng easter egg. Bruno is an excellent choice
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people and money is speech. Both ridiculous ideas.
And because of that, corporations can spend as much money as they want on political advertising! All a candidate has to do is give a company a good enough incentive to support him...
And that putting god on the money is not respecting an establishment of religion...
Major kudos for working Bruno Gianelli into the video. 😂
I'm less surprised by that than you featuring Timaru while talking about it.
4:50 This is basically the "Fernando is faster than you" of elections
Great content as always
Tweeting numbers is the modern equivalent of a numbers station
I would totally watch that brick advertisement
5:20
No year has 25 months. That must be some secret message.
We operate on the 'merican idiocracy proncipal, which means its not DD/MM/YYYY, its MM/DD/YYYY
Thats some sneaky smooth background music half as sam...
Already have Nebula but not too get rid off ads. But to watch jet lag a week early
This all makes complete sense. The first amendment guarantees the right of rich people to communicate the reasons why their candidate is the best choice.
The point of campaign finance laws is to prevent bribery.
All these "loopholes" are methods of accomplishing the first very efficiently. None of them enable the second. That is not a loophole. That is the system working as intended.
In fact, since soft money has been allowed to go crazy, there is very little evidence that bribery has increased. If anything, elections have become more nationalized, and bribery has become harder.
TIL that HAI has a global super PAC: BRICS
Here's an idea: get money out of politics completely. Make PACs and Superpacs illegal, make lobbying illegal, make corporations getting tax rebates and bailouts illegal. If candidates need funding for campaigns, set up a universal campaign fund where people can give money to that fund, and then all candidates draw equally from that fund.
What? That's too logical! No one will ever go for that, dummy! \s
How about when a Nazi party draws from that fund? Then the govt is funding them. How can this be fixed?
I like that brick ads video! Don't skip!!
How the duck is this an HAI and not a main channel video
I'm calling this the Half As Legal loophole
Back in high school in 2007, I remember a huge issue being Super-PACs and campaign financing. It was basically the Reps taking advantage and the Dems fighting against it. Fast-forward today, and no one gives two fingers about it.
everyone loves money, both far right and centre right
That's because the Supreme Court essentially banned the government from doing anything to regulate super PACs in a 2010 case called Citizens United. The Dems can't do anything about it now, and if they just stuck to their moral principles they'd be outspent by the GOP 100 to 1 in every race. Making it sound like the Dems are hypocrites is just wrong.
we appreciate your effort and hard work. God bless you.
My dad is a bricklayer (Master Mason, actually), so bricks fed, sheltered & clothed my family (quite well, if I may add).
As a Brit, that comment on the King cut deep. Truth hurts dude 😭 lol
Sam from Wendover would have my vote, Amtrak let's go
I just realized, Bruno Gianelli is a character from The West Wing....who basically helps the president win his relection campaign, then works for Arnie Vinneck in the last season.
Sam will make the trains run on time.
Great video.
To be fair, if there is a loophole as big as a door AND you need to use it because the guys you believe is killing the country are also using it, then can someone really blame you for using it?
Right in time for desantas
Background music gives me Ice Cage Ace combat 5 vibes
Hi Sam!
When I support you publicly, can be I be loud and proud?
I would half-assed support you for half a president!
Whats that string bit in the beginning from? It's super familiar and now its stuck in my head.
I'm just not sure about your connection to New Zealand prime minister candidate Tobey
I guess they do never miss
Glad I live in Australia where our political system isn’t corrupt as fuck. Ours is only corrupt as shit!
Congratulations America! Your democracy is up for sale. You've finally achieved banana republic status 🍌
Its disqusting that these loopholes are not closed already. Of course they are not unclosed by accident...
Nice Bruno shout-out
In politics, money always finds a way
sometimes I truly hate this country. Why does every law get subverted or not enforced in politics.
Because laws are only relevant if they make you change what you were going to do. And since there was a reason you were going to do that thing in the first place, and that reason has not typically gone away due to the law, you'll see if you can figure out how to do it anyway.
This isn't an American thing. It's a human thing.
BRAKING DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES IS MY DEMOCRATIC RIGHT, WHICH IS ENFORCED BY PROCEDURES!!!
Should definitely be illegal.
"offensively brazen loopholing" sounds kinda dirty.
Wow, that is ridiculous even for the US standard
Soooo...why did they post the Valentine's Day video so late?
By definition it is not a "loophole" if it is written into the law. Logically speaking, the bill likely would not have been passed into law had it not been for the alleged "loophole".
Instead of using imprecise terms it might make more sense to just point out that the law was never intended to be effective in the first place.
But all loopholes are written into the law, that's what makes them loopholes. The law is ineffective *because* it has loopholes
Loopholes by definition aren't intended consequences of the law. Although, I'd argue in this case it is the intent of the law!
I don't know about your eligibility but there should be a Sam for something. The main parties have locked themselves in to thinking that only a candidate who's hated by the majority can win.
I don't get into politics, but I feel like Sam wouldn't be the worst president that ever existed 😂😂
1) Guilty. Even in public, though, only when I'm alone, like, say, at a bus stop in the middle of nowhere.
2) Guilty. Though more knees than feet. Can't in really handy during the pandemic. All those doors opened and closed without having to touch them
3) Guilty. Also, shadowboxing in front of the mirror
4) Not guilty. Mostly.
5) Not guilty. But I don't have stairs where I live, so most stairs are in public.
4)
interesting as always!
What?! You mean politicians are owned by big business?!
Not really. Politicians like getting donations, but usually donors give to people who already agree with them, instead of trying to buy people. And there's plenty of small businesses and wealthy individuals who give big sums too - car dealers, for example, are often massive donors by the standards of local campaigns, but they're not all that big as businesses go.
The FBI needs to know that this video is about bricks
What a corrupt system.
You've heard of "Toby for Top Job"
now time for "Sam 4 Prez"
4:49 I can't believe they actually used a West Wing reference for the twitter accounts!
I'm so glad i'm not the only one who noticed!
'Allo', Your wife, Is she a goer? Know what I mean? Nudge, Nudge -- Wink, Wink, Does she like Pho - to - graphs?
Overturn Citizens United.
You should do one on how tech companies influence elections. That is much scarier than slush money.
Reminds me of a story of how people would just lead people to the Occupy Wallstreet protest even through they wanted to go to the Teacher protest.
was that ace combat 5 music at the beginning??
3:53 does Diffie-Hellman'ed encrypted communication count as private communication?