5 ms·

I always wondered what would happen if instead of making donations a public disclosure, that we did the opposite. We make it illegal to tell people you donated

I always wondered what would happen if instead of making donations a public disclosure, that we did the opposite. We make it illegal to tell people you donated to politicians. Totally secret. You can't quid pro quo if you don't know about the quid.

stephengillie 11y ago
If you remove the incentive for a behavior, you'll usually end the behavior. AKA you'll see a precipitous decline in campaign donations.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
If I ever ran for office, that's the approach I'd take: "Feel free to give me as much or as little funding as you like if you agree with my views, but the only way to change my views is to talk to me and convince me."
- twoodfin 11y ago
  Shockingly (or not), I expect the vast majority of U.S. politicians would say that's exactly how they behave. How much you believe them is probably a good proxy for how important you think campaign finance issues are.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > Shockingly (or not), I expect the vast majority of U.S. politicians would say that's exactly how they behave. Except I've never once seen such a claim actually made by any politician. So at the very least it seems likely to stand out. And as for how to believe them: "I intentionally have no access to the donor list, I have never seen the donor list, and if you tell me you've donated to my campaign I will have no particular reason to believe you, so don't bother".
    - Bill_Dimm 11y ago
      > Except I've never once seen such a claim actually made by any politician. So at the very least it seems likely to stand out. Marco Rubio made a claim like that on Meet The Press two days ago. > I intentionally have no access to the donor list That would require doing away with the $50,000 per plate fundraising dinners.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Except I've never once seen such a claim actually made by any politician. I've seen it made by almost every politician I've seen questioned about the impact of particular donations, and most people defending campaign donations against proposals to regulate them more closely; and as a lifelong political junkie and Political Science major, those are things I've seen quite a lot of.
      - JoshTriplett 11y ago
        I see; I hadn't seen that, and that explains the pile of negative responses and downvotes to my original comment. Thanks for the explanation.
- toufka 11y ago
  What if someone just wants to pay for your dinner? Or figures out what sports game you're going to, and pays to rent out the entire row of seats next to you. Or pays to do the same for your staff - who advise you? That's the issue we face now, and precisely the issue Lessig is trying to combat; a subtle but very real form of purchasing power.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > What if someone just wants to pay for your dinner? As an opportunity to talk to me about an issue? There'd be far better channels for that. > Or figures out what sports game you're going to, and pays to rent out the entire row of seats next to you. Or pays to do the same for your staff - who advise you? Then I'd be very interested in how they managed to break my security and privacy, particularly to figure out what seat; that just seems more creepy than anything else. And it seems more like something you'd do to a candidate you don't want to see elected, considering the PR image it would project. (Also, do you mean "rent out and leave empty" or "rent out to fill with people who want to bug me/them"? Either one seems obnoxious; the first is wasteful and creates an awkward situation, and the second seems decidedly creepy.) If you want to talk about strange things people with money can do to campaigns, there's the whole "third-party campaign ad" thing to talk about. Whether you're doing it to support a candidate or to attack one.
quonn 11y ago
How would you propose to implement this idea?
- aetherson 11y ago
  I don't know what his proposal is, but necessarily step one would have to be "a constitutional amendment voiding the First Amendment."
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Maybe. But SCOTUS has been pretty huge leeway on government regulations on direct transfers to political campaigns.
  - p_eter_p 11y ago
    His proposed amendment is here: http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-amendment-beta-v9 http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-amen... And yeah, section 2: "The First Amendment shall not be construed to limit legislation enacted pursuant to this article, save to assure content and viewpoint neutrality. Neither shall the First Amendment be construed to limit the equivalent power of state or local legislation enacted to regulate elections of state or local officers. Nor shall the First Amendment be construed to vest in any non-natural person any unalienable constitutional rights."
    - aetherson 11y ago
      Oh good. So, to be clear, this proposed Amendment would legalize literally any burden on speech so long as the speech was not literally one person speaking alone using entirely their own money? Like, under this Amendment, Congress passed a law saying "specifically the Democratic National Committee does not get to engage in any speech of any kind -- it may send no correspondence, buy no advertising, write no editorials," that'd be okay because the DNC is a non-natural person and as such has no rights under the First Amendment. The extent to which people on the left have let the very words "corporate personhood," utterly divorced from any actual implications thereof, becomes a bugaboo that drives them to silly positions is really amazing.
SilasX 11y ago
It doesn't seem like this approach depends on people not telling; the mere fact of it being unprovable does all the work. At that point, it doesn't matter if you tell a politician you voted for them, because you could be lying and they'd never know.

stephengillie 11y ago

If you remove the incentive for a behavior, you'll usually end the behavior. AKA you'll see a precipitous decline in campaign donations.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

If I ever ran for office, that's the approach I'd take: "Feel free to give me as much or as little funding as you like if you agree with my views, but the only way to change my views is to talk to me and convince me."

twoodfin 11y ago
Shockingly (or not), I expect the vast majority of U.S. politicians would say that's exactly how they behave. How much you believe them is probably a good proxy for how important you think campaign finance issues are.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Shockingly (or not), I expect the vast majority of U.S. politicians would say that's exactly how they behave. Except I've never once seen such a claim actually made by any politician. So at the very least it seems likely to stand out. And as for how to believe them: "I intentionally have no access to the donor list, I have never seen the donor list, and if you tell me you've donated to my campaign I will have no particular reason to believe you, so don't bother".
  - Bill_Dimm 11y ago
    > Except I've never once seen such a claim actually made by any politician. So at the very least it seems likely to stand out. Marco Rubio made a claim like that on Meet The Press two days ago. > I intentionally have no access to the donor list That would require doing away with the $50,000 per plate fundraising dinners.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Except I've never once seen such a claim actually made by any politician. I've seen it made by almost every politician I've seen questioned about the impact of particular donations, and most people defending campaign donations against proposals to regulate them more closely; and as a lifelong political junkie and Political Science major, those are things I've seen quite a lot of.
    - JoshTriplett 11y ago
      I see; I hadn't seen that, and that explains the pile of negative responses and downvotes to my original comment. Thanks for the explanation.
toufka 11y ago
What if someone just wants to pay for your dinner? Or figures out what sports game you're going to, and pays to rent out the entire row of seats next to you. Or pays to do the same for your staff - who advise you? That's the issue we face now, and precisely the issue Lessig is trying to combat; a subtle but very real form of purchasing power.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > What if someone just wants to pay for your dinner? As an opportunity to talk to me about an issue? There'd be far better channels for that. > Or figures out what sports game you're going to, and pays to rent out the entire row of seats next to you. Or pays to do the same for your staff - who advise you? Then I'd be very interested in how they managed to break my security and privacy, particularly to figure out what seat; that just seems more creepy than anything else. And it seems more like something you'd do to a candidate you don't want to see elected, considering the PR image it would project. (Also, do you mean "rent out and leave empty" or "rent out to fill with people who want to bug me/them"? Either one seems obnoxious; the first is wasteful and creates an awkward situation, and the second seems decidedly creepy.) If you want to talk about strange things people with money can do to campaigns, there's the whole "third-party campaign ad" thing to talk about. Whether you're doing it to support a candidate or to attack one.

quonn 11y ago

How would you propose to implement this idea?

aetherson 11y ago
I don't know what his proposal is, but necessarily step one would have to be "a constitutional amendment voiding the First Amendment."
- rhino369 11y ago
  Maybe. But SCOTUS has been pretty huge leeway on government regulations on direct transfers to political campaigns.
- p_eter_p 11y ago
  His proposed amendment is here: http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-amendment-beta-v9 http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/14010963493/proposed-28th-amen... And yeah, section 2: "The First Amendment shall not be construed to limit legislation enacted pursuant to this article, save to assure content and viewpoint neutrality. Neither shall the First Amendment be construed to limit the equivalent power of state or local legislation enacted to regulate elections of state or local officers. Nor shall the First Amendment be construed to vest in any non-natural person any unalienable constitutional rights."
  - aetherson 11y ago
    Oh good. So, to be clear, this proposed Amendment would legalize literally any burden on speech so long as the speech was not literally one person speaking alone using entirely their own money? Like, under this Amendment, Congress passed a law saying "specifically the Democratic National Committee does not get to engage in any speech of any kind -- it may send no correspondence, buy no advertising, write no editorials," that'd be okay because the DNC is a non-natural person and as such has no rights under the First Amendment. The extent to which people on the left have let the very words "corporate personhood," utterly divorced from any actual implications thereof, becomes a bugaboo that drives them to silly positions is really amazing.

SilasX 11y ago

It doesn't seem like this approach depends on people not telling; the mere fact of it being unprovable does all the work. At that point, it doesn't matter if you tell a politician you voted for them, because you could be lying and they'd never know.