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.
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.
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.
I saw this page a few days ago, and I thought about the relative merits of anonymity vs. disclosure in political contributions. Anonymity is only valid if it's airtight -- and anonymity means that no one knows who you gave money to.
You may not want people to know you gave $50 to the socialists last year, but you may also not want people to know that you gave $50,000 to George W. Bush.
These forms are a matter of public record: public candidates recieve the money, campaigns for public office are being held, public decisions are being made about who is being elected, and the public ought to be able to know who is financing a candidate's campaign. It is more important to know that someone was paid then to hide that you paid.
If a person cannot give money freely and openly to their candidate, our system is much more deeply flawed than anything that anonymous donations can fix.
Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
It helps us to know what is motivating our elected officials to do things. For example, on the PIRATE Act threat, it's been pointed out that Senator Hatch received a lot of money from the entertainment industry. This might suggest to some of his voters that he cares more about the people he gets money from than about the voters he's supposed to represent. You can argue whether it is undue influence, but the more information that voters have to make that decision, the better their decisions are likely to be.
Another example. Suppose, hypothetically, that Bush had received contributions from every president of an oil company (as well as their spouses, children, etc.). Some voters (myself included) might use that information in deciding whether or not to vote for him. I might decide that those contributions are what motivated his decision to invade Iraq and not any real fear of Iraq as a threat. If that's the case, I might decide to vote for someone else who I feel is more willing to represent my intersts, rather than the interests of rich people. Again, not everyone would have the same interpretation as I would, but I think it's important that voters be given the information so that they can decide.
After all, our federal republic is all about giving people as much information as possible and allowing them to elected representatives based on that information.
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.
I would somewhat rather have a system where politicians themselves -could- not know who had contributed. They're welcome to have their own ideas, campaigns, agendas -- but it'd be nice if they stuck to that, rather than changing course based on who's willing to give money under given conditions. People/corps could contribute based on what the candidate already has in mind.
At least it would make slightly clearer any cases of "X did Y because (s)he received Z contributions from corporations benefitting from Y" -- you would at least know politicians hadn't gotten "great new ideas" in the mail with a check.
However, we can't do that. Although we could force money to be sent through an anonymizing agency, corporations could always send an email saying "I hope you enjoyed the recent deposit of $x in your account -- I'm glad you saw our point of view." If need-by, such corporations (or individuals, mind you) could provide receipts to show they were actually the ones being the money transfer. Bank records, etc. would work as well. (To prevent some individuals from taking credit for the donations of others, thus bribing for free.)
If we can't have one extreme, then perhaps we should want the other. At least we have something to work with. It doesn't prevent corruption at all, however. Can we turn this information to our advantage in fighting corruption? Other than the standard "oh no, he received money!" headlines?
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....
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
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'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