Will we here calls for disclosing donors?

[Ravi]

I disagree, but at least you are consistent, thus proving you are not partisan.

Why don't you think they should disclose their funding sources? IMO, we should have transparency in government and I'm kind of surprised that you disagree with this...or am I misunderstanding you?

I fully support transparency in government, but this is not government. During the Jim Crow years some states used donor lists to retaliate against companies and individuals that advocated for civil rights. That alone is enough reason for me to continue the tradition of anonymous donations to organizations that engage in political speech, even if they advocate positions I disagree with.

I need more information before I can make a coherent comment.

Fear of retaliation, though, is not enough to make campaign donations private.

No one FORCES anyone to donate, after all.

 

[Ravi]

And sure it IS government, QW...these are people that are campaigning to run our government.

 

[Flopper]

I disagree, but at least you are consistent, thus proving you are not partisan.

Why don't you think they should disclose their funding sources? IMO, we should have transparency in government and I'm kind of surprised that you disagree with this...or am I misunderstanding you?

I fully support transparency in government, but this is not government. During the Jim Crow years some states used donor lists to retaliate against companies and individuals that advocated for civil rights. That alone is enough reason for me to continue the tradition of anonymous donations to organizations that engage in political speech, even if they advocate positions I disagree with.

If we are talking about small contributions for individuals, then I agree. But large contributions from special interest groups and corporations should be made public. Voters need to know who's sponsoring a candidate. To think that contributions of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars does not effect the objectivity of legislators is ridiculous. We are facing the real danger that the individual voter in our country will become irrelevant in the political process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I need more information before I can make a coherent comment.

Fear of retaliation, though, is not enough to make campaign donations private.

No one FORCES anyone to donate, after all.

Unions do.

These are not campaign donations, they are donations to groups that support various political causes, like Greenpeace or the NRA. Donations to campaigns are one thing, but donations to groups are another. For one thing, a lot of union members might oppose the some of the political positions their unions back. Linking them to those positions would be a violation of their right not to be linked to positions they oppose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And sure it IS government, QW...these are people that are campaigning to run our government.

The union is campaigning to run our government? The US Chamber of Commerce? What positions are they running for?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why don't you think they should disclose their funding sources? IMO, we should have transparency in government and I'm kind of surprised that you disagree with this...or am I misunderstanding you?

I fully support transparency in government, but this is not government. During the Jim Crow years some states used donor lists to retaliate against companies and individuals that advocated for civil rights. That alone is enough reason for me to continue the tradition of anonymous donations to organizations that engage in political speech, even if they advocate positions I disagree with.

If we are talking about small contributions for individuals, then I agree. But large contributions from special interest groups and corporations should be made public. Voters need to know who's sponsoring a candidate. To think that contributions of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars does not effect the objectivity of legislators is ridiculous. We are facing the real danger that the individual voter in our country will become irrelevant in the political process.

What about large donations from individuals? Why does a group of people that pool their money have fewer privacy rights than individuals? Why do rich people have fewer rights than poor people? Why should I believe that someone spending money on ads influences the politicians when they do not listen to me, and I say the same things the ads do?

 

[Moon]

I guess a better question would be, will the Republicans?

Nice deflection. Obama and his sycophants were the first to raise the issue, so wouldn't you expect them to step up and disclose who their contributors are?

Not a deflection. It was the Republicans who hid behind the USSC ruling when they were asked, so why should it be any different for the Democrats?

Yes, it's a deflection. You're ignoring the fact that this issue was started by Obama and his sycophants spreading baseless rumors about the Chamber of Commerce. Ever hear the saying about people who live in glass houses? It applies here. If the Democrats wish to have any credibility on this issue, they'd push for disclosure of contributions, and insist that their supporters do just that.

 

[Flopper]

I fully support transparency in government, but this is not government. During the Jim Crow years some states used donor lists to retaliate against companies and individuals that advocated for civil rights. That alone is enough reason for me to continue the tradition of anonymous donations to organizations that engage in political speech, even if they advocate positions I disagree with.

If we are talking about small contributions for individuals, then I agree. But large contributions from special interest groups and corporations should be made public. Voters need to know who's sponsoring a candidate. To think that contributions of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars does not effect the objectivity of legislators is ridiculous. We are facing the real danger that the individual voter in our country will become irrelevant in the political process.

What about large donations from individuals? Why does a group of people that pool their money have fewer privacy rights than individuals? Why do rich people have fewer rights than poor people? Why should I believe that someone spending money on ads influences the politicians when they do not listen to me, and I say the same things the ads do?

I think large donations from individuals should be made public along with all other large donations. Regardless of where the contributions comes from, if it is over a certain amount it should be made public. When you vote, you have the right of privacy but when you choose to actively support political candidates, there should be no right of privacy. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy although there specific areas that are addressed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we are talking about small contributions for individuals, then I agree. But large contributions from special interest groups and corporations should be made public. Voters need to know who's sponsoring a candidate. To think that contributions of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars does not effect the objectivity of legislators is ridiculous. We are facing the real danger that the individual voter in our country will become irrelevant in the political process.

What about large donations from individuals? Why does a group of people that pool their money have fewer privacy rights than individuals? Why do rich people have fewer rights than poor people? Why should I believe that someone spending money on ads influences the politicians when they do not listen to me, and I say the same things the ads do?

I think large donations from individuals should be made public along with all other large donations. Regardless of where the contributions comes from, if it is over a certain amount it should be made public. When you vote, you have the right of privacy but when you choose to actively support political candidates, there should be no right of privacy. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy although there specific areas that are addressed.

Why do the rich have fewer rights than the poor? What do you base this discrimination on, and how do you justify it under the Constitution?


Let me try this again.

These people are not supporting political candidates. All donations to any federal campaign already are public by law. What we are discussing are groups that advocate political positions that are sometimes popular if on group is in power, and sometimes unpopular if another is in power. These groups run ads advocating their positions, and are not donating to candidates. Forcing them to disclose donors potentially opens their donors to retaliation that is sanctioned by the powers that be, and thus unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court. The fact that you keep talking about donations to candidates indicates you either know this, and are attempting to deflect the discussion purposely, or that you are an idiot. I am leaning toward the first at this point, but if you continue after this I will have to admit that the evidence supports the latter.

Please do not prove me wrong.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Campaign's Big Spender

Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending."

Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com


One of the comments on the article says it all IMO.

"Interesting that the graph on the front page of the New York Times today - they had another hit piece on the US Chamber of Commerce - didn't even show AFSCME spending"

 

[uscitizen]

Of course.
Should we have expected anything else?
Their jobs, pensions, and benefits are on the line.
Too bad congress is not in the same boat.

 

[uscitizen]

Budget fighting on what to spend on will get lots worse for the next decade or so at least.
So more will be fighting over the less available money.
Lobbyists all.

 

[California Girl]

I suspect they've seen what's happening across Europe and had a 'holy shit' moment. Interesting that they'll spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns when their own members are struggling. Curious priorities.

 

[KissMy]

Of course.
Should we have expected anything else?
Their jobs, pensions, and benefits are on the line.
Too bad congress is not in the same boat.

Congress would be in the same boat if you had just voted for Rand Paul.

 

[Oddball]

Parasites all, is more like it.

 

[uscitizen]

I suspect they've seen what's happening across Europe and had a 'holy shit' moment. Interesting that they'll spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns when their own members are struggling. Curious priorities.

Umm just like corporate lobbyists they are hoping to get leglislation favorable to their membership.

 

[uscitizen]

Of course.
Should we have expected anything else?
Their jobs, pensions, and benefits are on the line.
Too bad congress is not in the same boat.

Congress would be in the same boat if you had just voted for Rand Paul.

Hey how can 100% of eligable Rand Paul voters on USMB be wrong?

 

[Oddball]

I suspect they've seen what's happening across Europe and had a 'holy shit' moment. Interesting that they'll spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns when their own members are struggling. Curious priorities.

Umm just like corporate lobbyists they are hoping to get leglislation favorable to their membership.

With the minor exception that the lobbyists aren't the bureaucratic bourgeoisie vampires, sucking the private sector dry.

 

[uscitizen]

I suspect they've seen what's happening across Europe and had a 'holy shit' moment. Interesting that they'll spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns when their own members are struggling. Curious priorities.

Umm just like corporate lobbyists they are hoping to get leglislation favorable to their membership.

With the minor exception that the lobbyists aren't the bureaucratic bourgeoisie vampires, sucking the private sector dry.

No they are not they are even worse! The lobbyists are the bureaucratic bourgeoisie vampires, sucking the government (aka tax dollars) dry.

 

[Revere]

I suspect they've seen what's happening across Europe and had a 'holy shit' moment. Interesting that they'll spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns when their own members are struggling. Curious priorities.

Umm just like corporate lobbyists they are hoping to get leglislation favorable to their membership.

With the minor exception that the lobbyists aren't the bureaucratic bourgeoisie vampires, sucking the private sector dry.

Whose political capers are underwritten by taxpayers, whether they like it or not.