4 ms·

> 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_refo

> 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
    Just a question, prior to Watergate, would it have been possible for someone to buy up hours of TV ads nationwide attacking the opponent of the person they want to win? I don't know anything about election law, so I'm wondering if something changed or if attack ads and massive spending just became more accepted.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      I'm not sure about TV ads specifically (TV ads probably were much less important in the 60s than now) but there's absolutely no reason to prevent somebody from speaking against any political candidate. If the First Amendment protects anything, it would definitely protect that.
    - specialist 12y ago
      Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

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
  Just a question, prior to Watergate, would it have been possible for someone to buy up hours of TV ads nationwide attacking the opponent of the person they want to win? I don't know anything about election law, so I'm wondering if something changed or if attack ads and massive spending just became more accepted.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    I'm not sure about TV ads specifically (TV ads probably were much less important in the 60s than now) but there's absolutely no reason to prevent somebody from speaking against any political candidate. If the First Amendment protects anything, it would definitely protect that.
  - specialist 12y ago
    Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine