• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Campaign anonymity rule thrown out

poweRob

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
88,714
Reaction score
65,726
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Judge throws out rule shielding campaign donors

The Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund certain election ads to keep their financiers anonymous, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's ruling could pave the way to requiring groups that spend money on electioneering communications — ads that don't expressly advocate for or against a candidate running for federal office — to disclose their donors.​


Good first step. This ought to be interesting to see how centralized these manipulators are in screwing with our government.
 
poweRob said:
Judge throws out rule shielding campaign donors

The Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund certain election ads to keep their financiers anonymous, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's ruling could pave the way to requiring groups that spend money on electioneering communications — ads that don't expressly advocate for or against a candidate running for federal office — to disclose their donors.​


Good first step. This ought to be interesting to see how centralized these manipulators are in screwing with our government.
Click to expand...

*Agrees with liberal*
 
Anonymous campaign funding seriously violates the concept of open and transparent elections. If we have to live with this citizens united nonsense, the people buying our politicians can at least give us a receipt.
 
I'm a huge privacy advocate, but a citizen's right to know who is buying... er, ummm, funding... their elected officials trumps privacy.
 
The bigger problem is all the people who fail to realize just how counterproductive it is to limit people's ability to reveal exactly how much they care about an issue. Why would anybody want the side that cares less to win? How can we accurately determine which side truly cares the most if we restrict people's freedom to put their time/money where their votes/hearts/mouths are? Is anybody really going to argue that fairness is more important than truth? Anybody? If so, then you can only blame yourself, and not the opposite party, when our "car" ends up in the ditch.
 
Last edited:
Terrific news. I don't know if I'm reiterating, repeating Xerographica's post as I don't see truth and fairness as separate in this issue. One doesn't trump the other when it comes to who is using their dollars to influence elections. As a private contributor to the campaigns of my choice, I don't have anonymity. Why should big money donors be any different? That speaks to fairness and in reporting that information, so the truth is revealed as well.

Both are right and necessary when it comes to campaign finances.
 
Good, now we should make the heads of the super pacs and the heads of campaigns have to show that they do not coordinate with one another. We all know its happening behind the scenes.
 
Gina said:
Terrific news. I don't know if I'm reiterating, repeating Xerographica's post as I don't see truth and fairness as separate in this issue. One doesn't trump the other when it comes to who is using their dollars to influence elections. As a private contributor to the campaigns of my choice, I don't have anonymity. Why should big money donors be any different? That speaks to fairness and in reporting that information, so the truth is revealed as well.

Both are right and necessary when it comes to campaign finances.
Click to expand...

If transparency of spending in the private sector limits people's campaign contributions...then fairness is trumping truth. When fairness trumps truth then resources are misallocated. When substantial resources are misallocated then we end up with recessions and depressions. Therefore, fairness should never trump truth. People should be allowed to freely put their money where their hearts/mouths/votes are...without having to worry about justifying or explaining or defending their decisions to anybody else.

Of course...how money is spent in the public sector is a different matter entirely. Then I'll clamor for transparency along with everybody else. Well...as a pragmatarian I believe that people should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. So it doesn't seem likely that taxpayers would be inclined to give their taxes to a government organization that wasn't able to provide them with a full account of how it spent their taxes.
 
poweRob said:
Judge throws out rule shielding campaign donors

The Federal Election Commission overstepped its bounds in allowing groups that fund certain election ads to keep their financiers anonymous, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson's ruling could pave the way to requiring groups that spend money on electioneering communications — ads that don't expressly advocate for or against a candidate running for federal office — to disclose their donors.​


Good first step. This ought to be interesting to see how centralized these manipulators are in screwing with our government.
Click to expand...

I agree. All financing of anything political should be 100% transparent.
 
rathi said:
Anonymous campaign funding seriously violates the concept of open and transparent elections. If we have to live with this citizens united nonsense, the people buying our politicians can at least give us a receipt.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I'll go even further.

I don't believe we'll ever have a government comprised of people who honestly want to serve the public until we have complete campaign finance reform. The government funds elections, and all legitimate candidates receive the same amount. No private contributions. No corporation contributions. No union contributions. No personal candidate funds can be used.

I'm sick of rich people buying themselves governor-ships, senate seats, congressional seats, and the presidency. I'm sick of wealthy individuals, corporations and unions buying themselves their own congress critters to push special interest legislation. The only time people will ever control their own government is when money is eliminated from the equasion.
 
DiAnna said:
I agree, and I'll go even further.

I don't believe we'll ever have a government comprised of people who honestly want to serve the public until we have complete campaign finance reform. The government funds elections, and all legitimate candidates receive the same amount. No private contributions. No corporation contributions. No union contributions. No personal candidate funds can be used.

I'm sick of rich people buying themselves governor-ships, senate seats, congressional seats, and the presidency. I'm sick of wealthy individuals, corporations and unions buying themselves their own congress critters to push special interest legislation. The only time people will ever control their own government is when money is eliminated from the equasion.
Click to expand...

I approve of this post.
 
DiAnna said:
I agree, and I'll go even further.

I don't believe we'll ever have a government comprised of people who honestly want to serve the public until we have complete campaign finance reform. The government funds elections, and all legitimate candidates receive the same amount. No private contributions. No corporation contributions. No union contributions. No personal candidate funds can be used.

I'm sick of rich people buying themselves governor-ships, senate seats, congressional seats, and the presidency. I'm sick of wealthy individuals, corporations and unions buying themselves their own congress critters to push special interest legislation. The only time people will ever control their own government is when money is eliminated from the equasion.
Click to expand...
I don't agree this would be the best solution, but it is a good solution and one that I would happily accept over the current status.
 
DiAnna said:
I agree, and I'll go even further.

I don't believe we'll ever have a government comprised of people who honestly want to serve the public until we have complete campaign finance reform. The government funds elections, and all legitimate candidates receive the same amount. No private contributions. No corporation contributions. No union contributions. No personal candidate funds can be used.

I'm sick of rich people buying themselves governor-ships, senate seats, congressional seats, and the presidency. I'm sick of wealthy individuals, corporations and unions buying themselves their own congress critters to push special interest legislation. The only time people will ever control their own government is when money is eliminated from the equasion.
Click to expand...

If people aren't allowed to reveal their actual preferences...then how would the government know what to do? How can people reveal their true preferences if they aren't given the opportunity to put their time/money where their hearts/mouths/votes are?
 
Xerographica said:
If people aren't allowed to reveal their actual preferences...then how would the government know what to do? How can people reveal their true preferences if they aren't given the opportunity to put their time/money where their hearts/mouths/votes are?
Click to expand...
You answered your own question.
 
Xerographica said:
So how you spend your time/money doesn't actually reveal your true preferences?
Click to expand...

When it comes to politics, money should not buy preference. If private money is allowed it should ALL be visible so you can follow the money and root out the corruption. If private money was disallowed, then it would be a more level playing field.
 
Xerographica said:
So how you spend your time/money doesn't actually reveal your true preferences?
Click to expand...
Many corporations contribute to both parties/candidates. I'd bet that many wealthy individuals do the same. How does that reveal their preferences?

People at that level are more prone to be pragmatic and hedge their bets, and less likely to be stuck on idealism.
 
Arbo said:
When it comes to politics, money should not buy preference. If private money is allowed it should ALL be visible so you can follow the money and root out the corruption. If private money was disallowed, then it would be a more level playing field.
Click to expand...

We only vote because we disagree on things. Why vote on something that we all agree on? So the side that wins the vote is the side that has its interests protected. Why would we want the side that cares less to have its interests protected? If you take money out of campaigns then you're preventing people from indicating exactly how much they care about an issue. Why don't you want people to have the freedom to indicate exactly how much they care about an issue?
 
radcen said:
Many corporations contribute to both parties/candidates. I'd bet that many wealthy individuals do the same. How does that reveal their preferences?

People at that level are more prone to be pragmatic and hedge their bets, and less likely to be stuck on idealism.
Click to expand...

You want to limit how much people can contribute because they contribute the same amount to both sides?
 
Xerographica said:
We only vote because we disagree on things. Why vote on something that we all agree on? So the side that wins the vote is the side that has its interests protected. Why would we want the side that cares less to have its interests protected? If you take money out of campaigns then you're preventing people from indicating exactly how much they care about an issue. Why don't you want people to have the freedom to indicate exactly how much they care about an issue?
Click to expand...

So someone with a million dollars to donate cares more about any given issue than a working class person that lives paycheck to paycheck?
 
Xerographica said:
radcen said:
Xerographica said:
So how you spend your time/money doesn't actually reveal your true preferences?
Click to expand...
Many corporations contribute to both parties/candidates. I'd bet that many wealthy individuals do the same. How does that reveal their preferences?

People at that level are more prone to be pragmatic and hedge their bets, and less likely to be stuck on idealism.
Click to expand...
You want to limit how much people can contribute because they contribute the same amount to both sides?
Click to expand...
How did you make the leap from YOUR point regarding preferences to somehow limiting contributions?
 
Arbo said:
So someone with a million dollars to donate cares more about any given issue than a working class person that lives paycheck to paycheck?
Click to expand...

Not sure if you missed the 1% vs the 99% debate...but millionaires are in the minority. Which isn't the easiest position to be in when it comes to democracies. So it's all about the long tail for the win...or lose.
 
Xerographica said:
Not sure if you missed the 1% vs the 99% debate...but millionaires are in the minority. Which isn't the easiest position to be in when it comes to democracies. So it's all about the long tail for the win...or lose.
Click to expand...

Except we are not in a democracy. We are in a system were representation can be bought, and that is no issue for the 1%, it is for the rest.
 
It doesn't matter what you agree or don't agree, it doesn't even matter on federal judge's ruling.

The Supreme court has already made a ruling on the person hood of Corporation. If the corporation can vote, then it is reasonable to expect the can vote in privacy. Unless they also will overturn the law that says your vote (real person) is not longer private either.

If this will go to SC, which I'm willing to bet it will, the SC has already made it clear which way it will turn.

Diving Mullah
 
Xerographica said:
So how you spend your time/money doesn't actually reveal your true preferences?
Click to expand...

Not as much as it reveals your will to have a corrupt government. I don't think anyone said "don't spend time doing volunteer work for your candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom