Slashdot Mirror
Watch Your Neighbors Political Contribution
arrianus writes "Fundrace.org gives a fascinating perspective on campaign donation laws. You can look up people's political donations to the current presidential campaign based on name (type in a friend's name, and see how much money he donated, and to whom), location (see which of your neighbors are politically active). I leave the privacy implications of this as an exercise to the reader. How long before this is tied into marketing databases? What happens if an employer were to prescreen employees based on political leanings?" Well, it is illegal to screen like that - and frankly, for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open. Still, disturbing to see.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
What happens if an employer were to prescreen employees based on political leanings?" Well, it is illegal to screen like that
Since when has anything being illegal stopped people from doing it? This system will be abused - even if nobody ever gets caught abusing it.
and frankly, for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open. Still, disturbing to see.
Why? Could somebody please give me a solid reason as to why this is of benefit to a democracy? (though, of course, the US is a federal republic - not a pure democracy).
If I want to contribute to the Satanist party (or whatever), why can I not choose to do so in private? Worse still - it looks like you can't opt out of this data being collected and accessed by anybody. Knowing that contributions are going to be made available in a public-access database is a hell of an incentive to not donate any money.
Making any private citizen's financial transactions public is bad - it's only one step from being able to look up anbody's bank balance.
It's alot like www.opensecrets.org. I really think that anything involving the government should be as open as possibile, including figuring out where politicians get their money. I want to know if there is any possibility for a candidate to be influenced by his big donors (cough, cough, bush).
This is a GOOD thing. We should know who's donating to what political party, if only to keep people (and money) in check with power.
Why is it when money's involved (banks, political donation databases, etc.), they have no trouble keeping track of it. But when it comes to e-voting, everything goes to hell?
Ah well. At least now we've got some way of figuring out who's supporting who.
Alex.
Just because something CAN be private, doesn't mean it should be, or that you should should get uptight about someone offering it to the public or individuals. I don't see what the problem is with making this kind of information public. It's definitely wrong to discriminate against someone based on this information, but wanting it to be unavailable sounds like curing a disease by killing the patient.
The way I see it, if you're making donations or otherwise supporting your political party or viewpoints, you shouldn't be afraid to stand up tall and say it loud and proud. What exactly would you be supporting that you don't want other people to know about? If you don't want other people to know where you stand on certain issues, political or not, maybe you should think about why you're supporting those issues or groups in the first place. If you're hiding any of your beliefs or opinions because you're worried about offending or alienating someone, then you just simply don't believe in them strongly enough to justify raising a fuss when those beliefs or opinions are trampled on. In other words, I think people should speak up BEFORE their silence creates the problem.
Hm. I don't seem to see myself listed, and I contributed a lot to the Dean campaign. *shrug*
I wonder what's up there.
--
viqsi - See "vixen"
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
If you see the map with red and blue highlights on the wall of your local fire department...
On the one hand I like the idea of knowing the money trail for politicians. On the otherhand I could see this being used to ostracise people...in certain communities.
I think a balance would be to set a limit on who gets listed, maybe donations more than 250 bucks or something. im assuming it costs atleast that to get some sway.
Note: this tracks donations greater than $200 per person during a bit over a year. I'm not seeing much blue, but I wonder how often we would find that democrat-contributions come in smaller amounts from more people, and republican-contributions come in larger amounts from fewer people? (That's only my a-priori, not-apolitical hypothesis.) Anybody have this data without a minimum cap on it? Seems like it'd be interesting.
For extra credit you can send $100 money orders (purchased with cash) in the names of people you look up in the phone book... or in Chicago, the obituaries.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The editor and owner of our local paper donated a total of 1750 over 3 donations.
This answers a lot of questions that were raised by commentary in her smart ass op/ed pieces.
Cunt
I hope you die painfully and alone.
Your name and address used to be listed for donations over $250, but now it is for donations over $100(maybe just Florida?). I suspect the politicians lowered it to give themselves more addresses to spam/junk mail asking for donations for the next race.
Why would it be illegal to discriminate on the basis of politics? I don't see anything on this at the FEC site.
The government can't discriminate on politics (first amendment) but the rest of us can. Age, gender, race, disability, and so on are protected by specific civil rights law; they are "protected classes." you can, however, refuse to rent to or employ someone on sexual orientation (most places), height, odor.... and if you want to hire only republicans for, say, the RNC, go ahead.
however, it regrettable that disclosure might chill some contributions. but with public financing of campaigns we could get around all of this nonsense and candidate groveling for contributions.
Connie E. Ballmer
Homemaker
N/A
George W. Bush - $2,000
3832 Hunts Point Road
Bellevue, WA 98004
Steven A. Ballmer
C.E.O.
Microsoft
George W. Bush - $2,000
3832 Hunts Point Road
Bellevue, WA 98004
Atleast Gates was smart enough to not give money legally, he probably gave massive amounts under the table....
I wonder if those orgs can use commercials to say who dontated to who. Obviously it could happen but how come last election we didn't see any of it. Just because this particular website wasn't around in 2002, who voted in 2003 lousy odd year, doesn't mean the information was hard to find or wouldn't benefit those. When we do our yearly donation to those, well maybe not moveon, we should ask if a small part could be used for those purposes.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
http://www.fundrace.org/images/moneymaps.png
Seems as the reds are winning, I hope not though...On the other side both parties are reflections of each other so it make little to no diffirent which of them actually wins. Some Democracy/republic huh?
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
One of the basic principles of democracies is that people should be able to cast their vote in secret. Of course, they can still cast their vote in secret, but now they cannot both support their candidate and vote for him in secret.
I think this system is flawed.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
I will boycott a business if I suspect it makes donations to the GOP (Domino's, for example). This makes it eaiser to target my boycotts.
thx,
Eric
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
Clear Channel is a well known supporter of the Republicans and G.W. Bush... and they have fired DJs in the past who spoke out against the administration, organized pro-war rallies, and most recently dropped Howard Stern after he began to speak out against Bush.
If a tool exists, it will be used... both for good or for ill.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me."
First off, this information is flawed because it is incomplete. As one poster above mentioned, his donation went unrecorded (according to this website). You should probably take it with about as much salt as your average slashdot poll--it obviously mentions some donators, but not others. So long as this is so, it cannot be trusted to give a clear picture.
Second, when looking at the national map, remember the following:
1) This is by area only, and does not take into account population density.
2)As mentioned above, the information is incomplete.
3)The map does not say whether it goes by amount or number of donations.
4)These are donations, not votes. Opinions can change over time.
As for my opinion on the good vs. bad thing debate, I'm thinking that this is a bad thing, overall. It's too easy to use information like this to make decisions about a person's quality of character or whether or not to do business with someone. Even beyond the privacy and secrecy of the vote issues, I think that there is good reason why this sort of information shouldn't be allowed to be tracked or stored.
Now that the genie is out of the bottle, though, I'm glad that this information is available to all rather than just a select few.
~UP
Eat the Path.
Problem with this mechanism is that it subverts the $2000 maximum. See I'm a low-level manager for company Y, my manager mentions to me about how much he likes Mr. Bush and in the same sentance hints that reviews are coming up soon and that mid-year end bonuses could be very generous. I know I'm giving to Bush, and I know most of my fellow line supervisors are also giving the 2K maximum. That's errm, about 1000*2000=2M from our company alone... and we are not even Fortune 100.
Here! Here!
Discrimination has become such a negative term these days. I consider myself a person with discriminating tastes. I discriminate when I choose my friends, when I choose the neighborhood where I want to live... the muffin that I want to eat (I prefer poppyseed) etc...
Discrimination is part of our constitutional right to Freedom of Association. I for one am in favor of the government limiting discrimination in it's own actions. But people are promised the right to associated with anyone who would associate with them willingly and they are also free to *not* associated with anyone.
As horrible as it is to discriminate based on things such as race, color, sex, politics, religion etc.
The right to discriminate is just as much a right as the right to free speech.
Before you flame... consider this.. most people think that there is a constitutional right to seperation of church and state**. I would suggest this line of reasoning
1) There is a right to freedom of association
2) Many people want to protected minorities (etc)for moral reasons
Now ponder this... how different is this from forcing a religion on someone? Forcing morals on someone... but not only that.. forcing morals that the constitution specifically says can not be enforced via freedom of association.
**There isn't any thing saying that there is seperation of church and state in the constitution, read the fine print... the framers just didn't want something like the Church of England. The specific wording was "...shall not establish..." What do you think establishing religion entails?? The line is fuzzy... but maybe today's supreme court has taken it a little to far.
At any rate... I would probably not discriminate based on someone's politics... I get along fine with the "Psycho Seattle Liberals" that I work with everyday... we have fun poking at each other's politics. But I would support the right of someone to choose who works for them.
Goodness knows I get flamed all up and down this joint for espousing conservative views... but that's what I get for having a big mouth. =)
We need to get good Civics classes back into our schools... I feel like I have to explain the entire US Constitution in every political discussion I have ever. Even if there are dissagreements... it's good to have some sort of knowledge of history and how our government was founded.
=)
~foooo
Agreed. I can't seem to find any of the people I know listed, yet I know that some have donated... some have even campaigned for these people. Both I and my girlfriend have donated to Dean, yet neither of us show up in the database. There doesn't seem to be a spot for us on the map of our city.
Can anyone verify that they are listed and this isn't a hoax?
The ______ Agenda
Interesting theory, but doesn't really stand up. Check out: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemograph ics.asp?cycle=2004
Also, check out the whole site..pretty interesting!
for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open.
For a really healthy democracy, you'd need to get rid of political donations completely.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
That page is also only for itemized amounts ($200 or more.) I'm fine with being wrong, and it's also entirely possible the previous graph showing mostly republican contributions was the effect of republicans receiving more money, but neither source shows amounts of less than $200 or their final impact.
From the second page:
The Federal Election Commission requires the recipient of any donation of more than $200 to itemize the contribution, identifying the contribution amount, as well as the donor's name, address, employer and occupation. The recipient combines all contributions of $200 or less and reports them as one total.
[...]
The total amount given in non-itemized contributions, as well as other statistics for the entire 2001-2002 election cycle (which ends Dec. 31), won't be known until next spring.
However, it goes on to mention that Republicans outpace Democrats in fund-raising in lower-middle-somewhat-high income level brackets, and that the Democrats benefit from "truly" deep-pocketed contributors to help them catch up. That generalization is hopefully based on previous years, as they don't have the data (at least not displayed) for the really-small contribution amounts.
My question was about less-than-$200 amounts, and sadly still isn't answered.
Before anyone says that campaigns cost money, keep in mind that all funds donated to the loser were completely wasted. In a sense, the Dems have a tough start, since their money is spread over multiple candidates. "Oops."
The correct form would be "Hear, hear!"
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
"Well, it is illegal to screen like that - and frankly, for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open. Still, disturbing to see."
not to forget, everybody's votes should be transparent, there should be no secrecy in the ballot process. Its probably better to have that in the open.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
It's illegal beacuse personal beliefs are protected in general, not just in specification to religious personal beliefs. Hell, the way some people refuse to deviate from their favored party, and would probably vote for Satan himself if he ran under their platform, politics might as well be classified as a religion.
You (and the parent) are both pretty much wrong.
Both parties have pretty much the same level of big-ticket donors behind them. For that matter, a lot of those big funders play both sides of the field, so that whoever wins, they still have the pull they'll need to, for example, pull enough fileswappers into court.
The private donors do tend to favor the Republicans, though, but it's generally attributed to the same reason the Republican's are often far more popular in elections than statistics say they should be: Their core voters are more loyal than the Democrats'. They donate more mone more often, and they make damn sure they get out and vote.
Yeah, it seems that all big business supports the man in office. It's not surprising at all I guess.
I, for one, find this as bit disturbing. Although I do think it is neccesary to have a verifiable donation record in the public domain, having one's name and address attached and displayed on the internet is a step too far. With all of the privacy that voting booths provide, why shouldn't people's donations be subject to the same rules? Where people put their money ought to be more confidential than where they put their vote as one directly leads you to the other.
I'm talking about the CHOICE that EVERYONE makes when they speak up about the things that are important to them. I didn't choose to be a white male heterosexual any more than you chose to be a gay black woman, but if you're not making yourself heard about your choice of beliefs because you're worried people will treat you differently, then that's just plain cowardice and that's why you're still being treated like you're a minority.
When you hold views that are different from ANYONE'S they will look at you differently. If an atheist and a christian got into a debate about the validity of religion, do you really think they will look at each other the same as before, regardless of wether or not they're straight white men? Your political beliefs simply can't be none of my business because your political contributions, be they voting, funding, or speaking, affects my business.
That's not illegal in most states, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not illegal in any state. You can discriminate or fire someone (in most states) for any reason that isn't EXPLICITLY outlawed. And at the federal level, the only prohibited reasons are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age over 40, and disability.
DiscDividers tabbed plastic CD dividers: divider cards f
Getting 'flamed' for your political views is a healthy part of free speech. Getting fired (or not hired) for them is censorship and a violation of your civil rights.
I can, however, understand it for someone working for the DNC, but that's because the essence of the job is politics -- Hiring a Republican to work for the DNC (or vice versa) would be like hiring a botanist for a chemical analysis position (or vice versa).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
I would be, but since Bush got into office I no longer have the means.
I do suggest you seek legal counsel. Your management may have made you an accomplice to a felony. At the same time, if you report this crime and it doesn't get picked up for investigation(and most reports don't), you would most likely loose this job--so I'd consider your options here very carefully. The above is not legal advice-but I suggestion that you get such advice.
I would look for an attorney with experience handling high level whistle blowing cases and lawsuits associated with such cases. You may have grounds for a lawsuit against your employers management since it appears plausible that your employer is making clear that commission of a felony will play an important role in your future at that company.
Do contributions made to Kerry or Bush right now count as contributions made to the primary election or the presidential election?
According to the FEC document I read individuals can contribute up to $2000 per candidate per election. But since Kerry (and Bush, I guess) hasn't officially been picked as his party's nominee, can I give him $2k now, wait until this summer, then give him another $2k?
More sugar!
So if you can afford the full limit, you give it to Bush. If you can't, you give it to anyone *but* Bush.
This is my World Wide Web of Whatever
While censorship can be used loosely to mean any type of chilling effect from any source... most would agree that your right to free speech applies only to censorship from the government.
Censorship from individuals or corporations is just one of the many consequences the world dishes out at you. Without these concequences society wouldn't work in the way we expect it to. No consequences usually means you will have to deal with "trolls" or "flamebait" all of the time. For (non-scientific) evidence look at the crud most anonymous cowards are willing to post.
Like I said before... "civil rights" as described in the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are blatantly unconstitutional and in direct contradiction to your right to free association.
Most people wouldn't discriminate in ways that society as a whole believes are harmful but in America people are allowed to be assholes... their right to free speech (and other rights) are just as important as the rights of "good people".
But we can't afford to pretend that there aren't consequences for our actions. Communities will selectively alienate people. People will alienate themselves from communities or other individuals.
They always have.
They always will.
Trying to enforce laws that "prevent" these things are short circuiting our human behavioral traits that have allowed us to survive thus far.
We must live in the real world. A world where people are asses. Where people get hurt. Where people are great humanitarians. Where people are having a "good 'ol time and not botherin' nobody."
~foooo
On the one hand, I can understand the privacy implications. On the other hand, full and open disclosure of who gives how much to what politician is universally regarded to be a Good Thing. Anyone who doubts this needs only to look at situations like Orrin Hatch sponsoring the monstrosities he is while receiving $14,750 from Viacom.
Keep your eyes to the sky.