Will we here calls for disclosing donors?

[Oddball]

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 wven worse! The lobbyists are the bureaucratic bourgeoisie vampires, sucking the government (aka tax dollars) dry.

Private sector lobbyists are paid by private interests, whereas AFSCME stooges leech off of the taxpayer..And private sector lobbyists aren't always necessarily after financial handouts from gubmint.

But I don't expect leftist Gomers to be able to make such distinctions.

 

[CaféAuLait]

My apologies Quantum Windbag I did not notice you had already started a thread on this subject.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/138322-will-we-here-calls-for-disclosing-donors.html

 

[Flopper]

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.

Sorry, I guess we are not on the same track. I have no problem with any group support for a political position and see no reason why their support should be made public. However, once they support a candidate, I think their support should be made public whether the support is direct or indirect. A new study finds that while nearly 80 percent of S&P 500 companies have disclosed direct political campaign spending policies, 86 percent have not disclosed policies regarding indirect political expenditures. Additionally, only 20 percent of corporations disclose how much is actually spent and which organizations or causes receive the funds.

Study Finds 86% of S&P 500 Companies Have Not Disclosed Indirect Political Expenditure Policies, Only 20% Disclose Spending | Business Wire

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Almost.

Just like corporate lobbyists they are attempting to get legislation in favor of their power structure, not the peons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My apologies Quantum Windbag I did not notice you had already started a thread on this subject.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/138322-will-we-here-calls-for-disclosing-donors.html

Thanks for the apology.

That said, I do not have a copyright on the story.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Sorry, I guess we are not on the same track. I have no problem with any group support for a political position and see no reason why their support should be made public. However, once they support a candidate, I think their support should be made public whether the support is direct or indirect. A new study finds that while nearly 80 percent of S&P 500 companies have disclosed direct political campaign spending policies, 86 percent have not disclosed policies regarding indirect political expenditures. Additionally, only 20 percent of corporations disclose how much is actually spent and which organizations or causes receive the funds.

Study Finds 86% of S&P 500 Companies Have Not Disclosed Indirect Political Expenditure Policies, Only 20% Disclose Spending | Business Wire

If they are not contributing to candidates they are not required to disclose it. Also, just because they support a group that does not mean they support any candidates the group supports. A perfect example of this would be the members of the VFW. The board got so upset with their PAC supporting candidates they do not like that they are disbanding it. Should every VFW member be required to have his name and address made public because a group that was independent of them, yet supported financially, made campaign contributions to candidates they oppose? That is essentially the position you are advocating.

Weigel : The End of the VFW PAC, Coming Soon

 

[Ravi]

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.

Ah, no...no one is forced to take a job that requires union membership.

And I disagree...what you are talking about, basically, are lobbyists. IMO freedom of speech (via donating) does not equate to freedom to secrecy.

 

[Ravi]

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?

sigh...the people they are supporting. Don't make me hit you.

 

[Annie]

They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.

We agree. If there was honesty among any partisans, it should be a desire to keep foreign interests and money out of the electoral system:

SEIU.org | Fight the Smears: SEIU Sends Members Dues Collected by "Illegal Immigrants" to Campaigns

Getting around the 'problem' alternative ways:

Where does the money COPE spends come from?

Voluntary contributions from members. The most common way that happens is by withholding small amounts of individual paychecks and forwarding the money to COPE.

If a member chooses to participate, we require they sign a statement that they understand only citizens and lawful permanent residents are eligible to contribute to COPE.

Does SEIU do anything else to ensure law is adhered to?

COPE trains members and staff soliciting COPE contributions and as part of that training it informs the members and staff of the prohibition on soliciting or accepting contributions from foreign nationals, and the importance of that prohibition.

What about foreign nationals who want to be involved but can't give to COPE?

There are a large number of fully lawful immigrant members of SEIU who wish to participate through their union in the critical policy debates going on in the country, yet cannot fund or participate in SEIU COPE because they are foreign nationals.

For those immigrant members, as a lawful alternative to participation in SEIU COPE, SEIU has established a program encouraging its immigrant members to participate in policy advocacy outside of the electoral realm on issues such as immigration reform.

As a further safeguard against unlawful electoral contributions, in SEIU workplaces in which there is a substantial immigrant membership, SEIU encourages its members to become active through this alternative program.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.

What's the catch? Why are you and I agreeing?

 

[editec]

It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.

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. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.

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

Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?

That's a reasonable request.

FWIW, I object to corporations of any kind donating to the election process.

Unions or managment, it's BAD policy.

 

[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.

Ah, no...no one is forced to take a job that requires union membership.

And I disagree...what you are talking about, basically, are lobbyists. IMO freedom of speech (via donating) does not equate to freedom to secrecy.

Really? Teachers are all required to be union members. Some states require that even if you refuse union membership you still have to pay dues, because you get the "benefits" of being in a union. I suppose you could argue that no one is forcing them to be teachers, or work in those states. They always have the alternative of starving to death after all.

I fail to see why people refuse to admit that there is more than one category of political speech. The example I gave with the VFW is a perfect example of this. Federal law requires that the lobbying arm of the VFW be entirely independent from the governing body of the VFW. As a result of the law the VFW PAC endorsed candidates that the rank and file members of the organization opposed. In fact, their PAC endorsed candidates that opposed expanding veteran's benefits, the military in general, and everything the VFW stands for. Why should they be forced to have their names publicly linked to candidates when the law says they have no right to control which candidates they get linked to?

There is a fundamental difference between supporting a cause and supporting a candidate. The Supreme Court has decisively ruled that anonymous speech is specifically permitted under the 1st Amendment because various government organizations, and private entities, have used disclosure laws to target individuals for retaliation. We saw examples of this recently in California when businesses were targeted because their employees, not the business owners, contributed to Prop 8.

Support laws that restrict free speech is supporting totalitarianism. This is not an issue where there are shades of gray, and you can hide in the shadows. You either support freedom or you oppose it.

 

[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?

sigh...the people they are supporting. Don't make me hit you.

They are running political ads, not giving campaign contributions. Additionally, the members have no control over the political actions of their union, and should not be required to link themselves to something they have no say in. That would be like blaming a Russian peasant for the actions of the Tsars, it makes no sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.

We agree. If there was honesty among any partisans, it should be a desire to keep foreign interests and money out of the electoral system:

SEIU.org | Fight the Smears: SEIU Sends Members Dues Collected by "Illegal Immigrants" to Campaigns

Getting around the 'problem' alternative ways:

Where does the money COPE spends come from?

Voluntary contributions from members. The most common way that happens is by withholding small amounts of individual paychecks and forwarding the money to COPE.

If a member chooses to participate, we require they sign a statement that they understand only citizens and lawful permanent residents are eligible to contribute to COPE.

Does SEIU do anything else to ensure law is adhered to?

COPE trains members and staff soliciting COPE contributions and as part of that training it informs the members and staff of the prohibition on soliciting or accepting contributions from foreign nationals, and the importance of that prohibition.

What about foreign nationals who want to be involved but can't give to COPE?

There are a large number of fully lawful immigrant members of SEIU who wish to participate through their union in the critical policy debates going on in the country, yet cannot fund or participate in SEIU COPE because they are foreign nationals.

For those immigrant members, as a lawful alternative to participation in SEIU COPE, SEIU has established a program encouraging its immigrant members to participate in policy advocacy outside of the electoral realm on issues such as immigration reform.

As a further safeguard against unlawful electoral contributions, in SEIU workplaces in which there is a substantial immigrant membership, SEIU encourages its members to become active through this alternative program.

The laws that exist already require them to do that, and they are audited every year by independent accounting firms and the IRS to ensure that they comply. Why do we need to take away their rights to make them do something they are already doing?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.

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. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.

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

Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?

That's a reasonable request.

FWIW, I object to corporations of any kind donating to the election process.

Unions or managment, it's BAD policy.

There is a problem with your position though. Election laws require that any group that gets together to spend money on an election issue has to incorporate. They then have to spend their money, and time, to track spending and donations. That means that if, for example, an annexation issue is on the ballot, and a a group of neighbors looks at the facts and decides that they will loose out if the annexation occurs. This group just happens to be right, and can prove it, but because you oppose corporations having a voice in elections, you just managed to silence them and skew the election in favor of the government, which is not restricted from commenting on elections.

Does that seem right to you now that you see more of the implications of your position?