5 ms·

Want to back that up with some evidence?

jpetra 12y ago
I was curious about what was written, so I thought I would respond after a quick Google search. I assume the losing your job part is referring to the Mozilla CEO news somewhat recently. I thought it didn't really need any research as it is posted about here often enough. The maps part is described in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html Or with a little more opinion on this page: http://sfist.com/2009/01/09/mash-up_map_of_google_maps_and_prop.php http://sfist.com/2009/01/09/mash-up_map_of_google_maps_and_p... (the second link has a link to the actual site with the map, but it doesn't load for me)
- jim-greer 12y ago
  Yes, one CEO candidate lost his job for a donation. Let's balance that with the damage done by routine corruption - we have to strike a balance between transparency and privacy.
tomohawk 12y ago
The whole point about disclosure is to enable feedback. The intended feedback may be for people to be able to make informed decisions about who is funding a candidate, but disclosure also enables other kinds of feedback. It allows coercion to be applied to people (donors) once their identities are known. Brenden Eich is one example. The ability to donate anonymously is an important firebreak. It protects those with minority opinions. It also protects people in general from those who think that coercion is an acceptable means to achieve an end. I should not have to worry that my boss will see that I gave a donation to his pet political cause in order to keep my job. Likewise, I shouldn't have to worry that my boss disagrees with some cause that I have donated to and fires me. I also shouldn't have to worry that one of these reprehensible groups who believe in bullying and coercion might decide to make an example out of me just because I supported the side of a cause they disagree with. Shouldn't a political debate be more about ideas than the people who are involved? Disclosure seems to enable a kind of intolerance, a kind of "guilty by association" kind of thinking that really has no place in civil society.
- jim-greer 12y ago
  > Shouldn't a political debate be more about ideas than the people who are involved? What if the idea is "I'd like a big contract for my construction company" Or, "I'd like favorable regulation for my cable broadband provider". This isn't just a debating society. It's a market with winners and losers. Donor harassment is a pretty abstract problem, with Brenden Eich as pretty much the only example. Corruption is routine, massive, and very concrete.
  - tomohawk 12y ago
    Having my boss be able to tell how I contributed to a political campaign is not an abstract problem. It's been a big enough problem in the past that there were laws passed to try to prevent it (see for example, the Hatch act). Mr Eich is the only example I mentioned. In just this one political cause (prop 8) he was one of many people who were bullied. How about Scott Eckern? How about Jose Nunez? And, for each example that has been made, how many people choose to remain silent? How does that get measured? Making high profile examples out of people is very cost effective and efficient. It demoralizes and defunds your opposition. I find whole idea that it is somehow acceptable to enable the bullying of individuals by extremist groups to be deeply unsettling. Anonymous donations prevent this sort of abuse very simply and effectively. If it's corruption you're after, then go after that. Either limit the power that the elected officials have (term limits, etc) or investigate them. People with money and power will always find ways to buy certain politicians. If one way is blocked, another will open up. Just look at how many politicians have cushy K street jobs once they retire (provided they do their masters bidding while in office). No campaign donations to trace or disclose.
    - Cushman 12y ago
      Am I the only one who's uncomfortable with the idea that political speech is kosher, but responding to political speech in a way which is "bullying" is not? I feel like we should do more to separate the abusive harassment (which is clearly not okay) from other real-life consequences, maybe including losing friends or a job, that come with holding and furthering a political belief. The latter seems like it could plausibly be a feature of a well-functioning political discourse.
d23 12y ago
> then let the lunatic fringe on their side do what comes naturally to them. Sure. It's not explicitly about donors, but the fringe have no problems taking advantage of things like this. http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/wisconsin-poll-watcher-militia-plans-to-confront-scott-walker-recall/article_062df082-5fea-5363-b498-c0c51aa5fa30.html http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/wisc... Long story short, the Scott Walker recall petition was public, and people were targeted if they signed it. There's a good piece on NPR's This American Life about it. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/509/it-says-so-right-here http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/509/i...
- avmich 12y ago
  That Scott Walker is in the office now means either 1) targeting isn't bad enough to not be able to win a governor race or 2) the story about targeting isn't credible enough - in other words, people discount it enough (not enough proof of acting) so that it doesn't matter. Curious what would it be.
mason240 12y ago
Brendan Eich, would be CEO of Mozilla.
valar_m 12y ago
Justice Thomas's concurrence in Citizens United cited several examples: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX1 [pdf]

I was curious about what was written, so I thought I would respond after a quick Google search. I assume the losing your job part is referring to the Mozilla CEO news somewhat recently. I thought it didn't really need any research as it is posted about here often enough. The maps part is described in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html Or with a little more opinion on this page: http://sfist.com/2009/01/09/mash-up_map_of_google_maps_and_prop.php http://sfist.com/2009/01/09/mash-up_map_of_google_maps_and_p... (the second link has a link to the actual site with the map, but it doesn't load for me)

jim-greer 12y ago
Yes, one CEO candidate lost his job for a donation. Let's balance that with the damage done by routine corruption - we have to strike a balance between transparency and privacy.

tomohawk 12y ago

The whole point about disclosure is to enable feedback. The intended feedback may be for people to be able to make informed decisions about who is funding a candidate, but disclosure also enables other kinds of feedback. It allows coercion to be applied to people (donors) once their identities are known. Brenden Eich is one example. The ability to donate anonymously is an important firebreak. It protects those with minority opinions. It also protects people in general from those who think that coercion is an acceptable means to achieve an end. I should not have to worry that my boss will see that I gave a donation to his pet political cause in order to keep my job. Likewise, I shouldn't have to worry that my boss disagrees with some cause that I have donated to and fires me. I also shouldn't have to worry that one of these reprehensible groups who believe in bullying and coercion might decide to make an example out of me just because I supported the side of a cause they disagree with. Shouldn't a political debate be more about ideas than the people who are involved? Disclosure seems to enable a kind of intolerance, a kind of "guilty by association" kind of thinking that really has no place in civil society.

jim-greer 12y ago
> Shouldn't a political debate be more about ideas than the people who are involved? What if the idea is "I'd like a big contract for my construction company" Or, "I'd like favorable regulation for my cable broadband provider". This isn't just a debating society. It's a market with winners and losers. Donor harassment is a pretty abstract problem, with Brenden Eich as pretty much the only example. Corruption is routine, massive, and very concrete.
- tomohawk 12y ago
  Having my boss be able to tell how I contributed to a political campaign is not an abstract problem. It's been a big enough problem in the past that there were laws passed to try to prevent it (see for example, the Hatch act). Mr Eich is the only example I mentioned. In just this one political cause (prop 8) he was one of many people who were bullied. How about Scott Eckern? How about Jose Nunez? And, for each example that has been made, how many people choose to remain silent? How does that get measured? Making high profile examples out of people is very cost effective and efficient. It demoralizes and defunds your opposition. I find whole idea that it is somehow acceptable to enable the bullying of individuals by extremist groups to be deeply unsettling. Anonymous donations prevent this sort of abuse very simply and effectively. If it's corruption you're after, then go after that. Either limit the power that the elected officials have (term limits, etc) or investigate them. People with money and power will always find ways to buy certain politicians. If one way is blocked, another will open up. Just look at how many politicians have cushy K street jobs once they retire (provided they do their masters bidding while in office). No campaign donations to trace or disclose.
  - Cushman 12y ago
    Am I the only one who's uncomfortable with the idea that political speech is kosher, but responding to political speech in a way which is "bullying" is not? I feel like we should do more to separate the abusive harassment (which is clearly not okay) from other real-life consequences, maybe including losing friends or a job, that come with holding and furthering a political belief. The latter seems like it could plausibly be a feature of a well-functioning political discourse.

d23 12y ago

> then let the lunatic fringe on their side do what comes naturally to them. Sure. It's not explicitly about donors, but the fringe have no problems taking advantage of things like this. http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/wisconsin-poll-watcher-militia-plans-to-confront-scott-walker-recall/article_062df082-5fea-5363-b498-c0c51aa5fa30.html http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/wisc... Long story short, the Scott Walker recall petition was public, and people were targeted if they signed it. There's a good piece on NPR's This American Life about it. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/509/it-says-so-right-here http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/509/i...

avmich 12y ago
That Scott Walker is in the office now means either 1) targeting isn't bad enough to not be able to win a governor race or 2) the story about targeting isn't credible enough - in other words, people discount it enough (not enough proof of acting) so that it doesn't matter. Curious what would it be.

mason240 12y ago

Brendan Eich, would be CEO of Mozilla.

valar_m 12y ago

Justice Thomas's concurrence in Citizens United cited several examples: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZX1 [pdf]