California Is Banning Public Officials From Making Memecoins (engadget.com) 131
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed AB 2409, barring California public officials from issuing memecoins and prohibiting companies from listing memecoins that use a public official's image or likeness. Engadget reports: The governor's office pointed to reports that about a million investors lost an alleged $3.8 billion on their purchases of the memecoin released by President Donald Trump in 2025 as a the motivation behind the new rule.
"No official should profit off their office -- and we're putting stronger protections in place to ensure it doesn't happen in our state," Newsom said. The bill also prohibits a company, related or not, from making a memecoin using "the likeness or image" of a public official.
"No official should profit off their office -- and we're putting stronger protections in place to ensure it doesn't happen in our state," Newsom said. The bill also prohibits a company, related or not, from making a memecoin using "the likeness or image" of a public official.
Re:Trade one troll for another (Score:4, Interesting)
We have zero chance of getting a competent president, for the same reason that the most skillful competitors never won Survivor.
Newsom comes across as bitter, though. He's a nepo candidate, never having won a particularly competitive race. He needs a little positivity. A positive slogan like, "Hope and Prosperity" or "High Time for Change" or "Change for High Time" or something.
Re: Trade one troll for another (Score:2)
How about "Don't Hate Me Because My Getty Money is Beautiful"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He might get away with it if he smiles more (it worked for Trump). I haven't seen him flash a non-sarcastic smile since COVID. Some mysterious sadness has infected the man.
Re:Trade one troll for another (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nancy Pelosi's Nephew isn't a NEPO baby?
Re:Trade one troll for another (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Trade one troll for another (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What was the basis for his rise to power, if not for SF Political Circle, with Pelosi at the helm?
Its not unfair, because it exists. The SF Democrat Cabal is close nit.
Re: Trade one troll for another (Score:3)
Most people don't know he's also basically an adopted Getty. He's scum from multiple angles.
Re: (Score:2)
Shapiro? That genocidal apologist? I hope not.
Re: (Score:2)
Shapiro is a genocide denier.
Every expert on genocide says what's happening in Gaza is a genocide.
Therefore Shapiro is a genocide supporter.
He claims he's against it while he continues to support it, so he's also a liar.
If you believe him, that means you're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that Newsom's trolling endears him to idiots who also happen to hate Trump, but it does not endear him to me. Here's hoping for Shapiro or Sand.
Honestly, I despise Trump, but Newsom comes off like a guy that realized people despise Trump, and the *ONLY* thing he could think to do with that information is use Trump's tactics to go after Trump. No real ideas, just hammer Trump with Trump-like rhetoric. Which makes me think we're probably stuck looking at Newsom for our next President, because God forbid we get someone in the running that has actual policy ideas for a better world. It's all "DEY BAD, ME GOOD BECAUSE SAY DEY BAD!"
What a depressing pile
Re: Trade one troll for another (Score:2)
If it makes you feel any better, America was always shit on the inside
Dear Gov Newsom ... (Score:1, Insightful)
With respec to "... prohibiting companies from listing memecoins... ", crypto and exchanges are designed to make such legislation ineffective. Better to focus on educating people on crypto based scams.
Unless its all just a PR stunt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He wants to ban that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that endorsing terrorism is a joke?
You are a sick fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
leftists think murder is great.
I only ever see a "dead pedophiles don't reoffend" sticker on the same vehicle that has an "elect pedophiles" sticker. (There are two different vehicles like this that I know of in my county, one of which I regularly see on my commute. And that's just what I've seen with my own eyes.) Reich wingers think both murder and child rape are great.
Re: (Score:2)
True, bots can't vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure about that. We have Biden and McConnel
Yes (Score:1)
Was this ever a problem to begin with? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Was this ever a problem to begin with? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it just performative? Trump has shown there's a whole lot of stuff we left up to "well no one would actually do that" or "congress wouldn't allow it" that, unfortunately, all needs to be enshrined in law.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Was this ever a problem to begin with? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see this as performative bullshit, and I'm not sure anyone with a lick of sense would.
Let's say I'm a public official. I want to take bribes but I'll go to jail for that. Instead, I can mint myself a cryptocoin and people who want to bribe me can buy them, effectively giving me money in exchange for nothing. I mean that's exactly what Trump did, and there's no reason to think others won't try it if it goes unchallenged.
Whether or not it will be *effectual* as a law will come down to how it's enforced.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
OR
You're a son of a president, selling "Art".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OR
You're a son of a president, selling "Art".
Barron Trump is worth $150M and doesn't even do that. Gee, I wonder how that happened. Christmas gifts, no doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you run the numbers and get back to us?
Egotistical, posters are (Score:2)
Want their faces on memecoins.
Nothing at *all* like the cult of personality...
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. You can't just characterize any business plan as a first amendment right. The first amendment doesn't protect pyramid schemes, or robbing liquor stores. Even just trying to make this argument makes you a bad person.
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment doesn't protect pyramid schemes, or robbing liquor stores.
Or, more to the point, bribery of public officials.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, more to the point, bribery of public officials.
Or blatant lying in advertisements, for that matter. Or shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. And yes, as you say, there's plenty of precedent on restricting politicians and various government officials from unduly enriching themselves using the power and/or influence of their position. There's in fact tons of well-established legal precedents where public well-being preempts free speech rights. Anyone making this argument in this fashion isn't doing it in good faith.
Re: (Score:2)
You can shout "Fire" in a theater. There is no such prohibition anywhere. Especially if there is a fire. What you can't do, which doesn't fall into 1st Amendment arena, is causing panic without cause. That has VERY specific legal criteria that must be met. "Narrowly tailored".
And people can lie in advertising, and do all the time. There are a whole bunch of hoops that one must jump through to bring such a charge against the advertiser, specifically to protect 1st Amendment rights. There are, indeed very NA
Re: (Score:1)
A legacy of poor enforcement isn't the same thing as it being legal.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a reason why its not enforced, it is exceptionally hard to prove AND generally doesn't rise to criminal activity. Politicians lie all the time in Advertisements. All sides do it. It isn't new, or one side is better than the other.
A politician can say they are in favor of the new "don't kill puppies and kittens" law, that also has a bit that allows them to send millions to their buddies at the "don't kill puppies and kitten NGO" and doesn't save a single puppy or kitten. And if you oppose it, you ha
Re: First Amendment (Score:2)
It's ok that you can't sue a politician for fraud when they say they support something and don't vote for it, but you absolutely should be able to sue them when they promise to vote for something and don't. When they make clearly falsifiable statements they should be actionable. That they are not is part of how we got here.
Re: (Score:1)
Posting anonymously now just to get the last word in? Nice try but I see right through that as well as your sneaky attempt to put words in my mouth in order to make your fictional version of my argument either to discount.
Re: (Score:2)
You can shout "Fire" in a theater. There is no such prohibition anywhere. Especially if there is a fire. What you can't do, which doesn't fall into 1st Amendment arena, is causing panic without cause.
Congratulations, here's your medal for pedantic dickweedery. The example of shouting "Fire!" in a theater has always had the implicit assumption that there isn't really a fire. Everyone (except you, apparently) knows that, which is why nobody bothers saying it every time they bring up the example.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment doesn't protect pyramid schemes, or robbing liquor stores.
Or, more to the point, bribery of public officials.
Sure it does, when it's called a campaign contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Crying "Bullshit" does not make your case, it literally says exactly what's going on, you are emotionally responding to things you don't like.
You can claim all the stuff you want to claim, and that doesn't make it right simply because you cried "BULLSHIT".
And yes, a business plan is a first amendment right. If it is a pyramid scheme, then go after that, it is already illegal. Meme coins are just modern Digital BeanieBabies. I know plenty of people who spent enormous amounts on those (and similar pop culture
Re: First Amendment (Score:2)
If it's a first amendment right why do you have to buy a business license to exercise it? I don't think that's how it works.
Re: (Score:1)
You can't just characterize any business plan as a first amendment right.
For most of them you can. Absent some activity that causes the public harm, you can start a business "for any legal purpose". We don't require royal warrants in this country. No kings, remember?
Re: (Score:3)
If Obama had sponsored as meme coin when he was in office your brain would have exploded. Your hypocrisy so toxic it's surprising you haven't died from it by now.
Okay, but... (Score:2)
Not to be judgmental... but every one of those investors who lost money on the Trump coin deserved it. Okay. Well... yes. Im being totally and irredeemably judgmental. Yeah, I'm judging. Whether it's sycophancy, ignorance, or stupidity, they deserved it. Am I supposed to do otherwise? They bought the Brooklyn bridge from a guy on a street corner.
Re:Okay, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about protecting rubes, it's about preventing an avenue for influence that's hard to trace. Who knows what countries, companies, and people put money in Trump's pocket through his coin and what they got for it.
Re: Okay, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Noooooo
You don't see how?
That's why.
It's because its not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about protecting rubes, it's about preventing an avenue for influence that's hard to trace. Who knows what countries, companies, and people put money in Trump's pocket through his coin and what they got for it.
Screwed over most likely.
It's not like Trump is well knows for sticking to his deals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Okay, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not the point though, it's the fact we have The President of the United States of America running 2-bit crypto schemes to enrich himself from the public at large.
Idiots or not this is probably one of the most corrupt actions in our lifetime.
Take any of the shit Trump has done like this, replace his name with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden and folks would be apoplectic.
"Hillary Clinton dupes millions of dollars of American citizens with corrupt money making scheme"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but I think that's there's a nuance here that needs mentioning.
Trump is a special case. Everything he does is some form of a grift. It's not hidden - it's completely transparent. Those who fall for it are ignorant by choice. If they choose not to examine it, or (more likely) to ignore what's in front of them, they are to blame.
The other politicians would have a different standard to meet because they would have fooled the people. Trump cannot be other than he is, and those who are fooled h
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree there's a level of ignorance there but this isn't just some guy, this is the man who is supposed to represent us, all of us, our nation.
The Ha-Ha's apply to us all. While we do it to the dupes the rest of the world is the tall man pulling our pants down and marching us around town. [youtube.com]
Not only should it not be allowed, everyone involved with it needs to be investigated and prosecuted. People need to go to prison over this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the orange shitgibbon is a rather good representation of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
lol you have *nothing* absolutely nothing to push back with.
you know what actually, i'm gonna say you are responsible for those kids deaths. you bear responsibility. i will not explain further you child killer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would 100% say scam. But I can understand a quibble over the particulars of "scam" so maybe let's say it's unethical and immoral.
Even the physical collectibles are the same to me. The President shouldn't be selling things to the public, especially for his own profit! Perverse incentives! Conflict of interest! Not good!
Re: (Score:2)
Quick, go ask Grok how the US Congress works you fucking dunce.
Re: (Score:2)
So you, Mr Civics Understander (TM), think the current Congress, both Houses controlled by Republicans are going to pass a bill specifically against what Trump, their President is doing?
Or you think when the Democrats take control in November that they will be able to pass such a bill without having 60 votes and even if they did they are expecting Trump to sign such a bill?
Please, do explain how this happens Mr I Understand How US Government Works?
Re: (Score:2)
This response is called "Stop, you're making em actually think too much, can't I just spout talking points and get claps??"
Well, here's your participation trophy you soy boy cuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the president is running a grave risk of his key being brute-forced!
Re: Okay, but... (Score:2)
Oh well, one day they will have to eat their own shit and they cannot refuse. Something to look forward to.
Re: (Score:2)
TRUE, where our DOGE dividends from all those savings at?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really?
Please, do share the paper trail!
Re: (Score:2)
lol
"Evidence? Crack pipe"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why Democrats want to stop idiots from losing their money, except as some sort of "gotcha" law passed by Newsom. Who exactly are they trying to protect? And more importantly, why?
This ain't right... (Score:1)
Isn't a memecoin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For normal people yes, for politicians it's a loophole to avoid corruption laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhat, we do know of some large parties that bought the Trump memecoin. The problem isn't knowing who did it, the problem is that this activity isn't counted as political fundraising which it clearly was, it was just "buying a memecoin". I don't want foreign governments and the ultra rich paying my president bribes to get favors. We know who did it, but it's currently legal apparently.
Slippery slope (Score:4, Funny)
What's next? If we accept this, then the next thing will be that public officials won't be allowed to sell Amway/Herbalife, heroin, or fake patents? This is viciously partisan, clearly intended to keep a certain major political party from running for office.
"No official should profit off their office" (Score:2)
No official should profit off their office
I was eating while I read that and literally choked and spit out crumbs as I laughed. Is he serious? Nearly all politicians do that, though not necessarily with meme coins. Both sides of the aisle.
LOL (Score:2)
Re:LOL (Score:4, Interesting)
Nancy Pelosi ranks 8th in terms of wealth. I'll let you guess which party the 7 people in front of her belong to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But yeah none of them should be abusing this insider trading.
Re: (Score:2)
Nancy Pelosi ranks 8th in terms of wealth. I'll let you guess which party the 7 people in front of her belong to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But yeah none of them should be abusing this insider trading.
Interesting that the 7 above her got their money from things like founder, CEO, owner.
But Nancy's is listed as "investments"
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that the 7 above her got their money from things like founder, CEO, owner.
Except for the one right above her, who got it from "nepo baby". But also, having been those things doesn't prove that's how they got rich, or that it was done legally.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense (Score:2)
Which is it? (Score:2)
Crazy that we need laws for this... (Score:2)
But here we are, I guess.
needs to be done nationally (Score:1)
Schadenfreude (Score:2)
That is a German word that does not really translate to English. So some English people just use the same word: Schadenfreude.
a million investors lost an alleged $3.8 billion on their purchases
You could enjoy (Freude) the "damage" (Schaden) some investors got by betting on Trump.
However: the money is not lost. It only changed owner. And the new owner benefits from it, likely it is Trump.