4 ms·

If I understand you correctly, you would seem to advocate for a positive right of a citizen to know how another citizen has freely spent his own money. And not

If I understand you correctly, you would seem to advocate for a positive right of a citizen to know how another citizen has freely spent his own money. And not only citizens, but the government would know as well, for "full and absolute transparency" would not prevent the government from seeing and using such information. As we have already seen, the Executive can misuse federal agencies to impede the financial efforts of his political opponents, so granting that right would not seem wise. For the same reason that we vote by secret ballot, not allowing citizens to spend their money secretly for political advocacy would also lead to a form of social tyranny. Consider Brendan Eich.

clairity 7y ago
it's a bedrock principle of our constitutional framework that we know who is exercising political power, to avoid corruption and tyranny. it's why we have 3 co-equal branches of government that must make their deliberations and decisions known to the public. and scale matters. PACs with millions of dollars can exercise political power in a way that regular individuals cannot. the public needs to know who is exercising power (that it's in the form of spending money is incidental). no one can (or should) protect you from all repercussions, and social pressure is better than (destabilizing) violence.
- useragent86 7y ago
  > it's a bedrock principle of our constitutional framework that we know who is exercising political power, to avoid corruption and tyranny. A statement so vague could justify anything. > it's why we have 3 co-equal branches of government that must make their deliberations and decisions known to the public. In fact, they aren't so required. > and scale matters. PACs with millions of dollars can exercise political power in a way that regular individuals cannot. the public needs to know who is exercising power (that it's in the form of spending money is incidental). You've ignored every point I've made and have repeated yourself. > no one can (or should) protect you from all repercussions An argument I did not make. > and social pressure is better than (destabilizing) violence. The former tends to cause the latter. If you just want to speak without listening, you could write a blog.

clairity 7y ago

it's a bedrock principle of our constitutional framework that we know who is exercising political power, to avoid corruption and tyranny. it's why we have 3 co-equal branches of government that must make their deliberations and decisions known to the public. and scale matters. PACs with millions of dollars can exercise political power in a way that regular individuals cannot. the public needs to know who is exercising power (that it's in the form of spending money is incidental). no one can (or should) protect you from all repercussions, and social pressure is better than (destabilizing) violence.

useragent86 7y ago
> it's a bedrock principle of our constitutional framework that we know who is exercising political power, to avoid corruption and tyranny. A statement so vague could justify anything. > it's why we have 3 co-equal branches of government that must make their deliberations and decisions known to the public. In fact, they aren't so required. > and scale matters. PACs with millions of dollars can exercise political power in a way that regular individuals cannot. the public needs to know who is exercising power (that it's in the form of spending money is incidental). You've ignored every point I've made and have repeated yourself. > no one can (or should) protect you from all repercussions An argument I did not make. > and social pressure is better than (destabilizing) violence. The former tends to cause the latter. If you just want to speak without listening, you could write a blog.