4 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the details of this case, so I won't speculate about how this case might be resolved under current law. But the general prin

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the details of this case, so I won't speculate about how this case might be resolved under current law. But the general principle I would apply here is that people who own important infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to interfere in elections (Trump 2024 in this case, I assume) by refusing to allow candidates to use that infrastructure. I don't think that's controversial in the case of, say, electricity or phone service, and it seems reasonable to apply it to payment processing as well.

nobody9999 6y ago
Your argument makes little or no sense to me. 1. When it comes to political actors, forcing a person or organization to support a specific candidate (who isn't even on any ballot at the moment) amounts to political coercion and is antithetical to a free society; 2. Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that? 3. Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly. In fact, Stripe is just one of many players in that market[0]; 4. Not only does the Donald Trump Campaign (a specific "candidate") have other options for online payment processing, online payment processing is not the only way to collect donations. As such, in addition to the dozens of other payment processors on the market, Bank transfers, Western Union, Zelle, CashApp, old fashioned checks and money orders, cash etc., etc., etc. are also available. You've got this all backwards. Political activity/speech is strongly protected in the US -- no just positive activity/speech, but negative activity/speech as well. And if the government can force Stripe (or you or me) to provide support to a political actor, then all of our rights are being impinged. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service_providers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service...
- leereeves 6y ago
  I'm not comfortable with the idea of "reverse boycotts", in which businesses can hinder candidates by denying them services. That gives business owners far too much power over elections (and Citizens United already gives them too much, IMO). I want democracy, not plutocracy. > Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that? Absolutely fine, if that "material support" was merely providing the same business I provide everyone else, at the usual cost. To me, paid services are not "material support", a phrase I would only use to describe in-kind contributions (that is, services provided for free). And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. What's backwards about expecting big tech to act like other businesses? > Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly... [candidates] have other options for online payment processing That's an important point, and here's the rule I would propose to account for it: treat refusing to do business with a candidate while doing business with their opponent as an in-kind contribution to their opponent. If the cost of finding an alternative is small, denying services will be allowed as a small in-kind contribution. I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking about how I think things should work, not what the current law is, but I believe that's the legal principle behind the Equal-Time Rule, so it's not entirely legally unprecedented.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. That's as may be. However, US Federal law doesn't require them to service anyone except in specific circumstances[0]. There are some state laws that extend to political affiliation, but that's almost always just in employment decisions and not B2B transactions. If you think the law is wrong (I do not), you can advocate for changing the laws. I won't support your efforts, but I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
    - leereeves 6y ago
      > I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. I just don't want the weight of their opinion to be related to how much they own.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. How else can forcing people to provide support (whether that support is compensated or not) for a political entity be interpreted? Doing so would reduce the political rights of those affected. And reducing those rights for to one group means they can do that to you or to me. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
        leereeves 6y ago
        Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts".

nobody9999 6y ago

Your argument makes little or no sense to me. 1. When it comes to political actors, forcing a person or organization to support a specific candidate (who isn't even on any ballot at the moment) amounts to political coercion and is antithetical to a free society; 2. Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that? 3. Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly. In fact, Stripe is just one of many players in that market[0]; 4. Not only does the Donald Trump Campaign (a specific "candidate") have other options for online payment processing, online payment processing is not the only way to collect donations. As such, in addition to the dozens of other payment processors on the market, Bank transfers, Western Union, Zelle, CashApp, old fashioned checks and money orders, cash etc., etc., etc. are also available. You've got this all backwards. Political activity/speech is strongly protected in the US -- no just positive activity/speech, but negative activity/speech as well. And if the government can force Stripe (or you or me) to provide support to a political actor, then all of our rights are being impinged. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service_providers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service...

leereeves 6y ago
I'm not comfortable with the idea of "reverse boycotts", in which businesses can hinder candidates by denying them services. That gives business owners far too much power over elections (and Citizens United already gives them too much, IMO). I want democracy, not plutocracy. > Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that? Absolutely fine, if that "material support" was merely providing the same business I provide everyone else, at the usual cost. To me, paid services are not "material support", a phrase I would only use to describe in-kind contributions (that is, services provided for free). And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. What's backwards about expecting big tech to act like other businesses? > Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly... [candidates] have other options for online payment processing That's an important point, and here's the rule I would propose to account for it: treat refusing to do business with a candidate while doing business with their opponent as an in-kind contribution to their opponent. If the cost of finding an alternative is small, denying services will be allowed as a small in-kind contribution. I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking about how I think things should work, not what the current law is, but I believe that's the legal principle behind the Equal-Time Rule, so it's not entirely legally unprecedented.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. That's as may be. However, US Federal law doesn't require them to service anyone except in specific circumstances[0]. There are some state laws that extend to political affiliation, but that's almost always just in employment decisions and not B2B transactions. If you think the law is wrong (I do not), you can advocate for changing the laws. I won't support your efforts, but I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
  - leereeves 6y ago
    > I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others. I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. I just don't want the weight of their opinion to be related to how much they own.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. How else can forcing people to provide support (whether that support is compensated or not) for a political entity be interpreted? Doing so would reduce the political rights of those affected. And reducing those rights for to one group means they can do that to you or to me. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
      - leereeves 6y ago
        Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts".