Slashdot Mirror
FEC Will Not Allow Bitcoin Campaign Contributions
First time accepted submitter memnock writes "ABC new reports: 'Political organizations can't accept contributions in the form of bitcoins, at least for now, The Federal Election Commission said Thursday. The commission passed on a request by the Conservative Action Fund, a political action committee, to use the digital currency. That group had asked the FEC recently whether it could accept bitcoins, how it could spend them and how donors must report those contributions. It was not immediately clear whether the same ruling would apply to individual political candidates.' Slashdot reported earlier this week that other federal agencies have taken positions that may recognize or regulate the currency."
through a provider that converts them for cash and gives that cash and provided the contributor states his name(presumably this is a condition for these donations in usa?).
that's how just about any site selling something for bitcoin operates anyways - the site receives dollars or euros from the payment processor.. the site never sees the bitcoin.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What if they're from a corporations? I heard they're allowed to buy elections now so who cares if it's variable worth, probably laundered money?
If you can't anonymously donate to a political campaign, your voice can't be heard!
Um, wait . . .
Never say "No." Say "But, if.." or "Yes, but.." This move by the FEC is just going to create a black market. They act like they're trying to protect the integrity of elections, but the effect will be the opposite. It's just like how drug prohibition creates criminal cartels. Now we're going to have bitcoin-funded ads of unknown attribution since the advertiser won't be legally allowed to say who they are.
If it moves from 200 to 1000 over a few weeks, it's not stable, nor mature.
People: "FEC, how should we report these transactions?"
FEC: "We will punish you, if you report these transactions."
People: "Ok, we won't report these transactions."
Problem solved.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
how can it's value go up and down 5x and be more stable than euro, dollar or yuan? or are you implying that bitcoins value is stable while these world currencies moved up and down?
probably the biggest value raiser for the time being is actually using it for moving currency out of china, which is a bitch.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
i get what they are trying to do, stop jillionaires from dumping money anonymously into campaigns. here's a better idea: stop allowing political orgs from accepting donations. if someone is running a campaign, they should be given a fixed amount of money and a fixed date to begin campaigns. i really dont want to hear about who is running for president two years before hand.
note: i said it was a better idea, not that politicians rather die than let this happen.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Have gnu, will travel.
However, if they'd declare it downright illegal, this would expose their intend to kill it, which is bad pr.
It wouldn't be bad PR for the government since almost no one cares about Bitcoins in the first place. It might even be good PR because it could play to the people who support things like the illegalization of recreational drugs and "being tough on crime". That second group is probably a few orders of magnitude more numerous in the US than Bitcoin users.
Bitcoins are rapidly gaining acceptance for payments because companies wanna receive them because they are appreciating rapidly.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I read a comment from political scientist Ray Laraja that I thought was interesting: "It doesn't sound like [the FEC commissioners] are going to do this, but if they allow bitcoins to remain anonymous then politicians actually wouldn't know who's giving to them. And so at least in theory, that could cut off this corrupt exchange." I don't know how feasible that really is, but would it improve things if all political contribution were required to be made anonymously via bitcoin.
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"
While it may have less than the full effect of legislation...I recall a reference to BTC having already been cleared for campaign finance. Here are the links if you want to listen to the meetings (4hrs) to clear this up. My impression was the idea seemed to enliven the interest (and debate) from a politician's viewpoint. 11/18/2013 - http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/beyond-silk-road-potential-risks-threats-and-promises-of-virtual-currencies 11/19/2013 - 3:30-ish - http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Seemed fairly clear to me the statement of this Senator may be in oppositely indicative. It is also clear that there is a lot of confusion in this arena...but I tend to believe a donation is still a donation...and that donations will not be suppressed. Just my opinion...you be the judge.
The FEC did NOT say that PACs can't accept Bitcoin. They pretty much unanimously agreed during the meeting (audio) that PACs *can* accept Bitcoin, and the Libertarians and some candidates already were and continue to do so.
They just couldn't decide *how* PACs should accept Bitcoin, and CAF (the requester) didn't ask about accounting standards or the like, so they didn't approve the request. FEC decisions are ternary: yes, no, and nil. This is nil, not no.
Full disclosure: my PAC's comments explaining a bunch of problems with the proposal were one of the primary reasons why they didn't rule on it, and we're intending to file a new request in the very near future. (Comments welcome on our draft of a new safe harbor policy.)
http://s.ai - http://s.ai/foia - http://s.ai/tsa/legal - https://patreon.com/saizai