3 ms·
> There seems to be a lot of potential for abuse in forcing everyone supporting any cause to publicly disclose their identity That’s not what’s on the table—th
by vundercind 2y ago
> There seems to be a lot of potential for abuse in forcing everyone supporting any cause to publicly disclose their identity
That’s not what’s on the table—the issue in question is whether paying others to magnify your views with a direct aim at affecting policy is something one should be able to do anonymously. Especially if we restrict this to “paying enough money to buy a substantial amount of an entire person’s time dedicated to promoting your interests” then this very much does not mean forcing everyone who supports a cause to abandon anonymity, but even without that carve-out for small time donors, it still doesn’t.
- ftth_finland 2y agoA simple solution would be to allow only private persons to remain anonymous. This could further be limited to donors under $X or % of total donations.
- Gormo 2y ago> A simple solution would be to allow only private persons to remain anonymous. Are there other sorts of persons?
- ftth_finland 2y agoYes, legal persons.
- Gormo 2y agoThat's just an abstraction. No such persons exist concretely or have the ability to act as independent agents.
- ftth_finland 2y agoYou might want to look into Citizens United vs FEC.
- Gormo 2y agoI'm quite well versed in the case. How do you think it relates here?