You might be right, but going after little people has a low cost/benefit ratio, and while going after the big guns might be a bit harder (those pesky corporations and big people fund all the elections) might be more difficult, the cost/benefit ratio would be much higher. That is, if one doesn't count the loss of election monies against the cost portion.
If the government is so dependent upon citizens forfeiting their assets, why don't they just take them all? Declare eminent domain and seize every asset in the country, personal, business, as well as any other construct.
Then, once they own all the assets, they can just sit back and figure out how they will tax people with nothing to be taxed. Start with anyone holding elected office, next go to anyone working for any level of government, then get the business's (extra penalties for trying to move your assets someplace else...oh wait, what would they pay with?), and then go after the little people.
Part of the issue with political parties (as they exist in the US) is the power yielded when deciding who will run. Then, of course, the control exerted by the 'leadership' when it comes time to vote when in session.
Your right that caucuses will form, but those caucuses might be less attuned to following some ideology established by the 'party leaders' in some smoke filled back room (where power is more important than their actual ideology). Caucus A will form over one piece of legislation, and Caucus B will form over another. Because there is no 'mother party', there will be less ability to influence the members of either caucus. That 'mother party' won't be able to threaten support at the next election.
Possibly an even greater control might be a required sunset on all laws, say every seven years. That the next congress might be made up of different representatives will have an influence upon whatever the former congress decided, allowing the country to grow along the lines of ever changing norms. It will work on both the current and the later congress's. We might be able to pass this now, but will it stand up to muster in 7 years?
My point is that he is not the only one with financial woes. Others, myself included, don't go about telling the whole world about them. So what is the point of telling us? Sympathy? Pity? Some form of manipulation to make his posts more...empathetic? It certainly does not contribute to any of his arguments.
And yes, this is not the right post to be arguing about funding journalism. This post is about defending the right to speak and state opinion without unfounded financial attacks through the courts, that win financially whether they are upheld by the court or not.
That Boston Magazine article sounds like it was written by a PR person, who has been hired by, influenced by, or indoctrinated by Shiva. The description "...Techdirt, a digital water cooler for geeks..." tells me the author has not read this site much. I have never been called a geek, though some may have thought of me as such. I am hardly qualified to ascend to that rarefied accolation.
It did make me think about a few questions. If someone using EMAIL tried to send me an email at my Google account, would they be able to? Or is it a proprietary system that only works with other proprietary clients? Does it use the @ sign?
No, you don't. You only need one thing. What they write. 20 some years of that is available. Go do some reading, and leave your ideological colored glasses aside.
To be an asswipe one only needs to open their mouths without thinking, or to be following some agenda. Just what is your ideology?
To think that some blog will open their books to you because you make unsupported accusations about independence is a whole lot more than arrogant. Yet, you trolls keep mouthing off, as if it might do you some good. It doesn't. You see it as counterpoint. It isn't. Come up with something provable, and not just in your head provable, and someone might listen.
What is the likelihood of Trump re-taking control (to whatever degree he actually gave up control) of his companies when he does leave office? He gets the benefit then, rather than now, yet he gets the benefit, now, and knows it.
I am not convinced he has given up control of his companies. He may not do much in terms of day to day running them, but I bet he has input on bigger decisions, through those minions he 'vested' control to. Let's just check his current tax records, and compare them to next years...oh...wait...
Many people caught up in these situations are not only not criminals, hard core or otherwise, but have things they may not want shared (perfectly legal bedroom photos with their legal significant other).
So far as that strict evidence-handling procedures, how would someone prove they didn't look at everything on the phone? Yeah, I know, hard to prove a negative, but there is the nature of privacy to consider. At least for the 'suspect', who is not guilty until proven so by a court of law. Regardless of ideology, privacy must be considered within the law, when they are made, and when they are applied.
Even with particularity specified in the warrant application, what stops the searchers from looking at EVERYTHING on the phone? They may be limited in using what they find on the phone in court, to that which the warrant authorizes, but other private information is also exposed. There needs to be a lot more thought about searching computers/phones/tablets/etc..
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"...you can be held in contempt of court and jailed until you comply with the legal court order."
The problem is that the legality of the court order flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment, except that it is on a computer. Which is a damned tiny excuse to except the Fourth.
As twisted as your analysis is, it does make some sense. Though I suppose it would also force most reasonable people to toss out the idea of integrity any time the word Government (Hi, we're from the Government, were here to help) comes up in discussion.
I would prefer my Government obtain loyalty from integrity, rather than loyalty from a lack of integrity.