Reply With Quote
If Repugs get control, Shelby says he's going to "re-visit" the Wall St reform bill overall, and esp the CFPA.
Do we have any right to know who spends money to influence elections or how much?
If so, how so?
If not, why not?
If Repugs get control, Shelby says he's going to "re-visit" the Wall St reform bill overall, and esp the CFPA.
And Chris Dodd threatened to defund the position if Obama used a recess appointment. Your point?
Lord knows it gets him farther than talking to you.
Actually, a good question. After all, does a donor have right to anonymity on who they choose to fund, and how much they wish to give?Do we have any right to know who spends money to influence elections or how much?
If so, how so?
If not, why not?
I don't know if it SHOULD be a legal requirement... but maybe people can get behind asking for accountability for those they elect to voluntarily disclose. *shrug* I know, I know, pie in the sky dreams over here.
Well, I would like to know who is smearing whatever candidate with BS, and what their interests are (and that goes for both parties). I would bet a good chunk of the donations would not be made if the donor couldn't be kept anonymous. This is the kind of stuff that promotes bad politics (ads that only talk about negatively toward candidates instead of actual proposals).
^^^ good example.
Devil's advocate sez:
( fire whooshes overhead)corporations, 501c(3)s, 527s, freaky nonprofits and whoever else gets away with it, are all individuals fully vested with first amendment rights and protections, whose preference to remain anonymous in their "charitable or philanthropic giving" ought to be respected, like ordinary US citizens.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-22-2010 at 03:54 AM.
you can burden any right if the cause is great enough. If you want to preserve an open election process for the good of all citizens, first amendment can be bent. ("Fire!" in a crowded theatre anyone?)
Reverse the question: What is the affect of letting money flood campaigns from any and all directions, with complete anonymity, and without recourse?
(And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...)
One problem with obfuscated sources of campaign finance is when, eg, fringe Mormon cultists in Utah disenfranchise CA voters in CA state election to impose their hate-based policies.
An honest and eminently reasonable take: ensuring open, honest elections trumps privacy rights for election donors.
More like following the question to a natural conclusion IMO, one already highlighted by ElNono: corruption/co-option by special interests (or "independent donors," as the NYT recently called them.)
Devil's advocate:
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.
Electoral giving is speech. Therefore, disclosure requirements are facially uncons utional.
Really campaign donations and the like wouldn't be such a problem (and this could probably be true of any number of issues) if the population wasn't so ing stupid to begin with. Maybe the truth is that most of us are so god damn dumb and we all get an equal vote therefor we're going to be trapped by those of us smart enough and with the means to manipulate the system to their benefit without the rest of us noticing.
If we can't stop the manipulation then the answer has to be in making sure people spot the manipulation.
Thats the that is downright depressing right there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
