5 ms·

> However I'm pretty sure once privacy is gone, attacking the supporters would be as prominent Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous elec

> However I'm pretty sure once privacy is gone, attacking the supporters would be as prominent Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous election spending. That only started happening with Citizens United in 2010. So we're not about to unleash some new torrent of attacks on previously anonymous donors. You value privacy over transparency. I do in some areas, but not in political spending. Seems like we'll have to agree to disagree.

nickff 12y ago
>"Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous election spending. That only started happening with Citizens United in 2010. So we're not about to unleash some new torrent of attacks on previously anonymous donors." To be clear, Citizens United was engaged in either campaign spending, candidate advocacy, or issue advocacy, depending on how you look at their actions; it is difficult to describe what they did as 'election spending' because the money was not going towards an election. This is a meaningful distinction, and not merely semantic for a number of reasons, of which I am sure we are all aware. There is a history of anonymous political speech in the USA, beginning with the federalist and anti-federalist papers. If one agrees that media corporations should be allowed to spend on anonymous campaign speech, then it follows that everyone else should have the same right. It is illogical to limit anonymous speech to broadcasters, publishers, as well as their friends and allies.
smsm42 12y ago
>>> Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous election spending. I'm pretty sure it does - people always donated to causes, and before the current "money in politics" panic campaign, they were anonymous for the most part. All the statutes requiring donor disclosure that I could find were pretty new. Could you bring an example of donor disclosure requirements that would qualify as "tradition"? >>> That only started happening with Citizens United in 2010 Citizens United decision changed very little on establishing privacy or disclosure. The decision was that the government can not ban a group of people, organized as a company, labor union or any other association. It actually upheld the disclosure requirements of BRCA. Of course, since the group has no obligation to disclose its membership or revenue sources, it can be used as a vehicle for anonymous speech. But that venue always existed, it was just that BRCA unconstitutionally banned companies from political speech. <i>You value privacy over transparency. I do in some areas, but not in political spending.</i> It's not the question of my values. I won't be the one who would abuse disclosure requirements. It's not the question of my preferences, it's a question of consequences which would happen regardless of what you and I prefer. Ignoring this consequences because they don't align with your values won't make them go away, they still will happen. Powerful people would still abuse disclosure requirements to suppress their opponents and ruin their supporter base, regardless of what you think about it. It's like Myspace saying "we value user experience, so we won't implement restrictive XSS filters". Then a guy named Samy comes and writes some JS code and pretty soon he owns their user experience lock, stock and barrel. Did their values help them prevent it? Not really. Now, in this case the effect is a bunch of wrong bits on the internet and a couple of mildly bruised egos. But with political campaign abuse the result would be bad laws passed, bad people elected and lives of people ruined when they opposed some bad candidate.
- jim-greer 12y ago
  > All the statutes requiring donor disclosure that I could find were pretty new They date back to Watergate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_... Since then, monied interests have found various ways around them, like soft money (fixed by McCain-Feingold), and now 501c4s. The SCOTUS majority in Citizens United actually assumed that there would be full disclosure of the outside spending, since super PACs have to file with the FEC. That's been evaded by having 501c4s and other anonymous organizations listed as the donor.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    1970s is not exactly a "tradition". And there were only disclosure requirements for committees, not for every organization that is engaged in speech. And, of course, as you can see for yourself, it did not work - with all regulation being continuously passed for 40 years, there's more and more money in politics. But I'm sure this time it would be different. As long as you keep pretending that "money is not speech" you would get surprised when people who want to speak politically would do so despite a myriad of regulations. The only way to prevent it is to restrict political speech. So far SCOTUS has been very skeptical towards such efforts, but this may be not forever, and one day First Amendment may fall. It would be a very sad day for America.
    - jim-greer 12y ago
      This thread has gone on for a while I'm not going to keep arguing point by point, but you misunderstand election law. Between Watergate and 2010 it was hard to do anonymous electioneering, for any person or organization. I think unlimited anonymous election spending is more of a problem than the possibility that a big donor might get bad press or be shunned by potential employers. You disagree. That's fine, let's get on with our lives and stop trying to convince each other, which obviously isn't going to happen.
      - gaadd33 12y ago

nickff 12y ago

>"Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous election spending. That only started happening with Citizens United in 2010. So we're not about to unleash some new torrent of attacks on previously anonymous donors." To be clear, Citizens United was engaged in either campaign spending, candidate advocacy, or issue advocacy, depending on how you look at their actions; it is difficult to describe what they did as 'election spending' because the money was not going towards an election. This is a meaningful distinction, and not merely semantic for a number of reasons, of which I am sure we are all aware. There is a history of anonymous political speech in the USA, beginning with the federalist and anti-federalist papers. If one agrees that media corporations should be allowed to spend on anonymous campaign speech, then it follows that everyone else should have the same right. It is illogical to limit anonymous speech to broadcasters, publishers, as well as their friends and allies.

smsm42 12y ago

>>> Our country doesn't have a tradition of unlimited anonymous election spending. I'm pretty sure it does - people always donated to causes, and before the current "money in politics" panic campaign, they were anonymous for the most part. All the statutes requiring donor disclosure that I could find were pretty new. Could you bring an example of donor disclosure requirements that would qualify as "tradition"? >>> That only started happening with Citizens United in 2010 Citizens United decision changed very little on establishing privacy or disclosure. The decision was that the government can not ban a group of people, organized as a company, labor union or any other association. It actually upheld the disclosure requirements of BRCA. Of course, since the group has no obligation to disclose its membership or revenue sources, it can be used as a vehicle for anonymous speech. But that venue always existed, it was just that BRCA unconstitutionally banned companies from political speech. <i>You value privacy over transparency. I do in some areas, but not in political spending.</i> It's not the question of my values. I won't be the one who would abuse disclosure requirements. It's not the question of my preferences, it's a question of consequences which would happen regardless of what you and I prefer. Ignoring this consequences because they don't align with your values won't make them go away, they still will happen. Powerful people would still abuse disclosure requirements to suppress their opponents and ruin their supporter base, regardless of what you think about it. It's like Myspace saying "we value user experience, so we won't implement restrictive XSS filters". Then a guy named Samy comes and writes some JS code and pretty soon he owns their user experience lock, stock and barrel. Did their values help them prevent it? Not really. Now, in this case the effect is a bunch of wrong bits on the internet and a couple of mildly bruised egos. But with political campaign abuse the result would be bad laws passed, bad people elected and lives of people ruined when they opposed some bad candidate.

jim-greer 12y ago
> All the statutes requiring donor disclosure that I could find were pretty new They date back to Watergate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_... Since then, monied interests have found various ways around them, like soft money (fixed by McCain-Feingold), and now 501c4s. The SCOTUS majority in Citizens United actually assumed that there would be full disclosure of the outside spending, since super PACs have to file with the FEC. That's been evaded by having 501c4s and other anonymous organizations listed as the donor.
- smsm42 12y ago
  1970s is not exactly a "tradition". And there were only disclosure requirements for committees, not for every organization that is engaged in speech. And, of course, as you can see for yourself, it did not work - with all regulation being continuously passed for 40 years, there's more and more money in politics. But I'm sure this time it would be different. As long as you keep pretending that "money is not speech" you would get surprised when people who want to speak politically would do so despite a myriad of regulations. The only way to prevent it is to restrict political speech. So far SCOTUS has been very skeptical towards such efforts, but this may be not forever, and one day First Amendment may fall. It would be a very sad day for America.
  - jim-greer 12y ago
    This thread has gone on for a while I'm not going to keep arguing point by point, but you misunderstand election law. Between Watergate and 2010 it was hard to do anonymous electioneering, for any person or organization. I think unlimited anonymous election spending is more of a problem than the possibility that a big donor might get bad press or be shunned by potential employers. You disagree. That's fine, let's get on with our lives and stop trying to convince each other, which obviously isn't going to happen.
    - gaadd33 12y ago