3 ms·

The problem with disclosure is that the information is often used to pressure or shame people out of expressing their views, or supporting causes they believe i

by nickff 12y ago

The problem with disclosure is that the information is often used to pressure or shame people out of expressing their views, or supporting causes they believe in. One must always ask whether they would like such rules to be used by their adversaries, as this will inevitably come to pass. I imagine that disclosure of financial support to political causes could have hurt various interests which I support, but were initially unpopular, such as desegregation, and extension of the franchise; I am certain that many causes which I will support will be initially unpopular, and this has convinced me that anonymity is important. There are many reasons to support the opportunity for political anonymity, and among them is also the fact that one cannot guarantee a viewpoint neutral rule will have favorable long term outcomes, even for a specific interest group.

ddingus 12y ago
That's actually how speech works. The First Amendment isn't a shield. Any one of us may entertain any advocacy we see fit. Others see it and may see merit, or think it's crazy, or offensive. The answer? More free speech. If we are to say money is speech, then the dynamics of speech should apply. Anything really worth supporting is going to see some shaming, but it's also going to see support, robust debate and competition too. Not having disclosure creates a shield where there should not be one, and it invites corruption and the inability to even understand what is happening in politics. "Initially unpopular" There are a lot of things in place today that were initially unpopular, yet they happened anyway. Free speech is how we got a lot of them done too. Wasn't pretty, but it works, and it's just. The First Amendment doesn't have a shield in it so that we can find, debate, and get past our differences, and deal with abuses. We can't really debate anon type dollars as speech, though it happens somewhat indirectly which isn't really the same, nor can we really understand abuses, and even crime. I absolutely want the same rules for my opponents. If I'm actually engaging in speech that really does have basic merit problems, their counter speech is going to bring that out, and the balance of all the speech is reason. I really might be impacted by shame, and it actually might have a basis in reality too. That is a good thing. There are people putting lots of dollars toward causes that would be painful to express directly today, and those causes can impact people, who really don't know who is attempting to buy law / policy targeting them. How just is that really? And if they are doing that, and it really does lack basic merit, shouldn't they actually experience real shame? I think so. That's how the First Amendment is intended to work. "initially unpopular" might actually mean "wrong" or "unjust" and in those scenarios, people should feel some shame. Those counter arguments would actually have merit and we actually benefit from that dynamic. And "initially unpopular" implies some greater goal or end state having sufficient merit to overcome initial issues. That's a sales job, and selling it in private basically means buying law, getting around the interests of our peers and having our own way for having dollars, not that it actually got sold and that we pursue that policy out of any real consensus. Seems to me, where we lack a meaningful debate and we allow very loud voices to dominate without actually having to own their speech like everybody else must, how can we really understand the merits were vetted and those greater states or goals have the worth associated with that initially unpopular policy?

by nickff 12y ago

ddingus 12y ago

That's actually how speech works. The First Amendment isn't a shield. Any one of us may entertain any advocacy we see fit. Others see it and may see merit, or think it's crazy, or offensive. The answer? More free speech. If we are to say money is speech, then the dynamics of speech should apply. Anything really worth supporting is going to see some shaming, but it's also going to see support, robust debate and competition too. Not having disclosure creates a shield where there should not be one, and it invites corruption and the inability to even understand what is happening in politics. "Initially unpopular" There are a lot of things in place today that were initially unpopular, yet they happened anyway. Free speech is how we got a lot of them done too. Wasn't pretty, but it works, and it's just. The First Amendment doesn't have a shield in it so that we can find, debate, and get past our differences, and deal with abuses. We can't really debate anon type dollars as speech, though it happens somewhat indirectly which isn't really the same, nor can we really understand abuses, and even crime. I absolutely want the same rules for my opponents. If I'm actually engaging in speech that really does have basic merit problems, their counter speech is going to bring that out, and the balance of all the speech is reason. I really might be impacted by shame, and it actually might have a basis in reality too. That is a good thing. There are people putting lots of dollars toward causes that would be painful to express directly today, and those causes can impact people, who really don't know who is attempting to buy law / policy targeting them. How just is that really? And if they are doing that, and it really does lack basic merit, shouldn't they actually experience real shame? I think so. That's how the First Amendment is intended to work. "initially unpopular" might actually mean "wrong" or "unjust" and in those scenarios, people should feel some shame. Those counter arguments would actually have merit and we actually benefit from that dynamic. And "initially unpopular" implies some greater goal or end state having sufficient merit to overcome initial issues. That's a sales job, and selling it in private basically means buying law, getting around the interests of our peers and having our own way for having dollars, not that it actually got sold and that we pursue that policy out of any real consensus. Seems to me, where we lack a meaningful debate and we allow very loud voices to dominate without actually having to own their speech like everybody else must, how can we really understand the merits were vetted and those greater states or goals have the worth associated with that initially unpopular policy?