4 ms·

I haven't been following this much, but it's sort of amusing and annoying when someone mirrors my thoughts on a subject so well. The really bad thing that happ

I haven't been following this much, but it's sort of amusing and annoying when someone mirrors my thoughts on a subject so well. The really bad thing that happened in this entire drama was that the list of donors was released to the public. That shouldn't have happened. Some quick googling, on the other hand, yielded this: http://www.gayfresno.com/content/view/669/ http://www.gayfresno.com/content/view/669/ To which I can ultimately only say, "Sigh."

devindotcom 13y ago
Personally I disagree - I think donations to political causes and organizations should be considered public speech. Participation in a democracy takes 'a certain amount of civic courage.'
- gcp 13y ago
  This makes it impossible for a minority movement to slowly gain traction. Why do you think secrecy in voting is widely considered to be necessary for true democracy?
  - devindotcom 13y ago
    It's not impossible, and while some forms of secrecy are necessary, I don't think they are "widely considered to be necessary," even if "true democracy" was a well-settled concept that happened to agree with your understanding of it. We just don't see eye to eye on this and likely won't ever.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      You're basically not saying anything except, "I disagree." Voting is the same type of public, political speech that donations are. Indeed, in a world where money is indisputably an overwhelmingly dominant medium through which votes are gained (that is effectively the point of donations), they are practically synonymous.
- saraid216 13y ago
  I think that sentiment makes sense on a plainly logical level, but it doesn't work in reality, because it legitimizes our current plutocracy. I could be more amenable to your viewpoint if the donation amount is hidden, though. Edited to add: also agree with gcp's point, and am annoyed that it didn't occur to me, which it should have.
dnr 13y ago
The list of donors to all California ballot propositions is in the public record. That's just the law. Everyone donating to ballot propositions knows it. If they don't want their donation to be public, they don't have to donate.

devindotcom 13y ago

Personally I disagree - I think donations to political causes and organizations should be considered public speech. Participation in a democracy takes 'a certain amount of civic courage.'

gcp 13y ago
This makes it impossible for a minority movement to slowly gain traction. Why do you think secrecy in voting is widely considered to be necessary for true democracy?
- devindotcom 13y ago
  It's not impossible, and while some forms of secrecy are necessary, I don't think they are "widely considered to be necessary," even if "true democracy" was a well-settled concept that happened to agree with your understanding of it. We just don't see eye to eye on this and likely won't ever.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    You're basically not saying anything except, "I disagree." Voting is the same type of public, political speech that donations are. Indeed, in a world where money is indisputably an overwhelmingly dominant medium through which votes are gained (that is effectively the point of donations), they are practically synonymous.
saraid216 13y ago
I think that sentiment makes sense on a plainly logical level, but it doesn't work in reality, because it legitimizes our current plutocracy. I could be more amenable to your viewpoint if the donation amount is hidden, though. Edited to add: also agree with gcp's point, and am annoyed that it didn't occur to me, which it should have.

dnr 13y ago

The list of donors to all California ballot propositions is in the public record. That's just the law. Everyone donating to ballot propositions knows it. If they don't want their donation to be public, they don't have to donate.