5 ms·

It's a tough balance, but I think most people disagree with you. Right now there's literally nothing stopping Russia or China from buying ads to sway elections.

It's a tough balance, but I think most people disagree with you. Right now there's literally nothing stopping Russia or China from buying ads to sway elections. I don't think that's happening, but I think secrecy and corruption are a bigger threat to our democracy than a few protesters. Even Ted Cruz thinks there should be full and immediate disclosure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrmUvAoPV1I&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrmUvAoPV1I&feature=youtu.be

jeremyt 12y ago
With respect, I think it's a safe bet that this organization wasn't formed to prevent Russia or China from participating in domestic politics. It seems squarely focused on the David Kochs and Tom Steyers of the world. And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. I know that my position isn't popular, but the Federalist papers talked about this issue, and took the position that for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? There are several recent examples illustrating that money doesn't buy elections. Maybe it's not a fact yet, but there's enough evidence behind it that I think it's a defensible position. If this takes off, I think the end result will be less participation in the political process by average Americans, who fear retaliation down the road. Maybe it looks like a difficult balance to you, but I think I would always come down on the side of more speech rather than less.
- jim-greer 12y ago
  > for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? I'd rather have small donors have a bigger share of voice.
- staunch 12y ago
  > And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. We know Russia has done this successfully at least once. According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_m...
  - wooster 12y ago
    And it's been awhile, but IIRC the Mitrokhin Archive has a number of other examples of the Soviet Union influencing US politics through donations to political organizations. I would be surprised if governments weren't still attempting to influence each others' internal politics.

jeremyt 12y ago

With respect, I think it's a safe bet that this organization wasn't formed to prevent Russia or China from participating in domestic politics. It seems squarely focused on the David Kochs and Tom Steyers of the world. And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. I know that my position isn't popular, but the Federalist papers talked about this issue, and took the position that for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? There are several recent examples illustrating that money doesn't buy elections. Maybe it's not a fact yet, but there's enough evidence behind it that I think it's a defensible position. If this takes off, I think the end result will be less participation in the political process by average Americans, who fear retaliation down the road. Maybe it looks like a difficult balance to you, but I think I would always come down on the side of more speech rather than less.

jim-greer 12y ago
> for every David Koch there is a Tom Steyer. Why not let them waste all of their money fighting each other? I'd rather have small donors have a bigger share of voice.
staunch 12y ago
> And if Russia or China was participating to a significant degree in our internal politics, that would come out as a national security issue and should be dealt with in other ways. We know Russia has done this successfully at least once. According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_m...
- wooster 12y ago
  And it's been awhile, but IIRC the Mitrokhin Archive has a number of other examples of the Soviet Union influencing US politics through donations to political organizations. I would be surprised if governments weren't still attempting to influence each others' internal politics.