Mitch McConnell.
I can give many more examples and why they are in my estimation.
On occasion I actually watch C-span. There was a subcommittee investigating cable/internet etc... takeover by big companies and they had some witnesses that own smaller local providers who were getting smeared. It was rather complex. But nuts and bolts were exposed and the VP of ATT I believe, basically admitted that a rule change would hurt "his" stockholders and then slipped up and said people on a much higher pay scale make these decisions. Well this of course led to discussion of ownership etc... who are these people etc... Then There were representatives throwing softballs at this guy as well. wtf??? Why? Ask something that actually is germane to the line of questioning. No, just do your best with your time to get this off course because the pseudo trial was going badly.
I know there had to be reporters and others taking all this down.
I hope they can get to the facts about contributions to these representatives that tried to divert the subject. Overt .
It was quite blatant and sickening. And I dont really even understand all the ramifications to the consumer. I just know representatives of the US House tried to derail the questions that were getting very uncomfortable.
Anecdotal but powerful. CSPan can be useful.
Cspan obviously is important in transparency.
I hope some of this strange questioning has a legit answer.
It stunk of payola.
But in the very large picture this whole topic is again, at its foundation, an individual rights vs. rights of the society.
It can be very complex. Your concerns are certainly legit. Privacy for individuals.
Nobody is telling them not to be whatever they want to be in private. Donating to their favorite politician is not a private matter, however, it ends up affecting the public at large.
Now, past potential social shunning, there shouldn't be any other kind of retribution, and educating about that is probably just as important as transparency when it comes to money in politics.
Donations don't directly affect the public at large.
And maybe morally there shouldn't be any retribution or discrimination but there is: Chick-fil-A.
Mitch is a senator.
Honest answer, it doesn't matter.
Voters can compare donor lists with recorded votes and decide who's on the level and who's too stinky to remain in office. The transparency benefits voters and can be a check on compromised pols absent any legal process proving or punishing wrongdoing.
There's a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's car, as well as well established 4th Amendment rights.
A similar presumption of privacy doesn't exist for political contributuons, which are subject to limitation and disclosure by law.
I know in the end this doesn't matter. This is a vacuum. The reason I'm asking is that I disagree with your claim and your reasoning behind the claim.
And I'm fine with a regulatory agency looking into each donation....... I'm not fine with John Q Public getting info on his neighbor.
Last edited by Blake; 08-11-2019 at 02:30 PM.
Here's a solid article on the court history of it all:
https://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-n...o_Privacy.html
Almost was found to be a 1st amendment violation in the 1950s but the court decided the risk of corruption overruled it.
They absolutely do. You simply cannot run a campaign without money. From filing fees, to setting up a campaign, to marketing, fundraising is integral to a campaign's viability.
I still don't see how this is not a choice for the donor to make. If they're bigots in private, there should be no reason not to embrace that, and deal with the consequences, hopefully for the better.
That didn't explain how they affect the public at large.
How did the donations to Hillary's campaign affect us?
They should have a right to keep their bigotry private if they so choose. And the problem is perceived bigotry when there might not be any.I still don't see how this is not a choice for the donor to make. If they're bigots in private, there should be no reason not to embrace that, and deal with the consequences, hopefully for the better.
And you saying they can simply choose to either donate and be subject to being outed or not donate at all is a false dilemma.
And and it has nothing to do with campaign corruption.
She was the Dem candidate, a terrible one at that. In no small part, she's just as responsible that we have this administration running the country.
And let's stop pretending that if she didn't have the fundraising power, she would've made it anyways.
It totally has to do with corruption and currying favors. It goes to both parties. If you support X candidate, do so proudly.
Let's be honest here, the only reason this is an issue is because the candidate they're supporting likes to align himself with shady ideologes.
So what?
Edit:
I see your reasoning as I gave an example that does not cover how broad a parasite can be defined.
My bad.
McConnell gets favors from donations and access that help him in more than getting re-elected. Which is actually a twofold parasite.
Last edited by pgardn; 08-11-2019 at 11:13 PM.
I went over most of this.
I do understand his concerns.
This is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:
If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.
This is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:
If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.
There is a bigger problem.
Get too famous on twitter and get threatened.
Get to hated on ST and people put the wrong photo of you up and some poor guy with nothing to do with this site gets posterized and actually finds out the ridiculous things being said about him.
The true detectives of this site are a little overzealous.
Or a neighbor punches another neighbor for donating to TrumpThis is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:
If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.
Or Chick-fil-A loses a contract because a councilman made a rash voting decision
Or any number of examples
And I'd be totally down for a campaign finance committee to investigate such perceived parasites
The first one is assault. We have a court system for that.
The second one can also be challenged if Chick-fil-A feels they're being discriminated.
The whole point is that no matter what the example, excesses are what's wrong, not transparency.
This idea that we need to keep the shady because "people are unruly" is convenient for corruption, but it's all backwards. Democracy is all about co-existing with different ideas.
This is well put.
But Castro putting out the list...
I personally would rather a watchdog group put it out that followed public records.
But I would still want it seen. Same for the next Democratic President.
Look, you want to point fingers at Castro because he used his megaphone as a political tool? Go ahead.
But, what I see as dangerous here is that the knee-jerk reaction is that we need to curtail transparency because "publish shaming". Ridiculous. Invite more disclosure, and let the people form their own opinions.
I mean, there's such a lack of trust in the political system as it is, anything that brings transparency and, at least, a modi of information to the voters is welcome.
So you want to prevent potential corruption through transparency while I want to prevent potential violence through cons utional right to privacy?
To each his own.
In this case, this allows the people to form ideological opinions about the corporations who donated to Trump.
Maybe that's Castro's right but it's in poor taste and ultimately serves no purpose to the public at large.
My biggest issue with what Castro did was make a loose allegation that anyone who donated to Trump did so because of bigotry. People vote for all kinds of reasons and in this last election, I suspect some people voted for Trump because they could not stand Hillary Clinton and not because they supported Trump.
Exactly.
But let's out these bigots any way!
Because potential corruption! (?)
Because conservatives are afraid someone might say something mean, shun them socially, or boycott their businesses?This is what the repercussions should look like for the bigot coming out:
If there's more than that, then we need to look at the larger issue, not at campaign transparency laws.
Talk about having the cowardice of one's own convictions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
