Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FEC Will Not Allow Bitcoin Campaign Contributions

Posted by Unknown on from the end-the-bitfed dept.

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."

12 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. sure they can. by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:sure they can. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And just how do you verify who is the actual sender? How do you know it's not a foreign campaign donation? Or above the legal limit?

      We already have bought and sold pseudo politicians running the country. This doesn't make it better.

    2. Re:sure they can. by plover · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, I think accepting bitcoins for campaign donations would make it much better. Bitcoins are pseudonymous at best, they are not cryptographically anonymous. And the global transaction log shows exactly which wallets were involved, every step of the way. Track the wallet, track the campaign cash.

      Sarah Meiklejohn is a researcher who was able to trace the bitcoins used for a marijuana purchase on the Silk Road. https://cse.ucsd.edu/node/2299

      I'm all for allowing people to make mistakes in covering up their illicit activities.

      --
      John
    3. Re:sure they can. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      how? you trust that they asked. how do you verify it with cheque or cash in hand? or above the limits? well duh using the same as any other way. the point being its all a trust based system to begin with. ..or are they only allowed to do them via cash-in-hand with in id in another hand while an elections official checks the id? I really doubt that.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:sure they can. by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not quite like that. The FEC governs how elections are run here down to how campaign workers can spend their time. Due to our first amendment (which is a great amendment, don't get me wrong) anyone can pretty much give anything to a candidate. This combined with our de facto 2 party system (which is protected by the 2 parties, not the constitution) sets up the perfect pay-for-play political system. Organizations give money to candidates and expect results... and usually get them. The our media which is already reeling from financial loses to the internet gets their largest revenue from elections and political ads. The candidates spend so much money on a single campaign now that anyone not willing to except large donations with strings, has absolutely no chance of even showing up on the ballot much less getting elected. The only way they can even get on local news stations is to make statements so outlandish that the media has to put them on.

      I suspect that this decision will be challenged in court and reversed based on the 1st amendment and the fact that the rest of the fed seems to be accepting it as a legit currency. Our only real hope for reform in this country is that the 2 parties eventually screw up so badly that the general populace loses faith in both them and the media that supports them. But I'm not holding my breath.

  2. unless... by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:unless... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now, now - stop exaggerating. Corporations aren't allowed to simply buy elections. There is an approved bidding process. Candidates are shown off like prized cattle, and the corporations have to attend the auction, make their bids, then wait for election day to find whether their bids were successful. One does NOT simply waltz in, choose his candidate, and purchase him!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re: unless... by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A corp doesn't have to choose - in close campaigns the big ones donate to both so they're owed regardless of the outcome

    3. Re:unless... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Now, now - stop exaggerating. Corporations aren't allowed to simply buy elections. There is an approved bidding process. Candidates are shown off like prized cattle, and the corporations have to attend the auction, make their bids, then wait for election day to find whether their bids were successful. One does NOT simply waltz in, choose his candidate, and purchase him!

      It is more like a whore house by proxy.
      Candidates are preened, paraded, even seduced...
      but it's the constituents that get screwed...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  3. Re:This is because BitCoin's value is relevant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it moves from 200 to 1000 over a few weeks, it's not stable, nor mature.

  4. Brilliant Move! by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    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
  5. Re:Kill by regulation by khallow · · Score: 2

    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.