Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

PSPS

(14,714 posts)

3. "for the Republicans to win"

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2025, 10:25 AM

Jun 30

However, in a 2001 ruling, the court upheld the restrictions at issue in the new case, meaning the justices would have to overturn that decision for the Republicans to win.

A more succinct description would be "the justices would have to [remove all restrictions on bribery, influence peddling and outright purchasing of an elected office by foreign governments and oligarchs of any country] for the Republicans to win [any] elections."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Bettie Bayard Bayard

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court takes up major new challenge to campaign finance restrictions [View all] BumRushDaShow Jun 30 OP

Just put all the money in traitor's pocket Marthe48 Jun 30 #1

Bet on it. nt Javaman Jun 30 #2

"for the Republicans to win" PSPS Jun 30 #3

Maybe we need a class action on behalf of those of us who Bettie Jun 30 #4

6 Justices are more concerned about blocking porn than blocking corrupt politicians. cstanleytech Jun 30 #5

The amazing amount of cash that the $Trump family D. Spaulding Jun 30 #6

I actually don't think this is such a big deal... thesquanderer Jul 2 #7