This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] epsilona01 1 point 9 points 10 points (+10|-1) ago (edited ago)
No, that's not it. The banks will refund the money to the consumer, but they most likely won't get it back from the campaign. (or even try) Therefore the campaign now gets to keep $97 instead of $23 or w/e, with the bank essentially giving them the difference without having to claim it as campaign contribution.
This is campaign finance fraud on a major scale.
[–] Spaceballs-1 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Honestly, I've never heard of a bank NOT trying to get back every penny but depending on the total amounts ( if it's 1200 a month per state that's 60 grand per month - plus now that it's reported expect amounts to multiply!) this could turn into some serious shit.
[–] epsilona01 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Mind you, it's just an assumption... but these banks do support her after all. Sounds like a great way to skirt campaign finance laws and give their chosen candidate money.
[–] 6330015? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Before I entered the IT world, I used to work in payment investigations for a credit card company. They can try to charge back the amount but in the end they usually write off amounts under $20-25 (sometimes even more) because it would cost them that much to get it back. Now, in a case like this they usually would try to get them back because it is the same entity doing it over and over and the total is a lot more than normal write-off amounts. There may be something going on in the background with state AG to put some pressure on someone.
[–] Men13 ago
Say they do try to get the money back. Money she already spent. After the election. Can't her campaign just declare bankruptcy at that point? What's the downside for them? Their job is already over...