• 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!

GOP bill designed to keep secret the IDs of campaign donors

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
[/FONT][/COLOR]


Video @: GOP bill designed to keep secret the IDs of campaign donors - YouTube

Yup... Remember that thing about transparency? Yea the GOP hates that, they are not much into that. They want to hide everyone contributing to their campaigns.. So I have to ask "what are they hiding"? This is clear. Its not about "free speech", its about channeling secret money.
That's hardly territory exclusive to republicans, but I agree they are wrong on this issue. People should be allowed to contribute any amount they like to any candidate they like. In return, every candidate should release his list of donors and how much they contributed. If someone is trying to buy an election or buy a candidate through massive contributions, the voters should know who is pulling whose strings before they pull the lever in the voting booth.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]


Video @: GOP bill designed to keep secret the IDs of campaign donors - YouTube

Yup... Remember that thing about transparency? Yea the GOP hates that, they are not much into that. They want to hide everyone contributing to their campaigns.. So I have to ask "what are they hiding"? This is clear. Its not about "free speech", its about channeling secret money.
Seeing how the IRS is targeting groups I can see what the GOP wants to keep that information private.Keeping the donors private protects the donors from harassment by opposition groups ie Democrat lawmakers. Sort of like NAACP vs Alabama when Alabama wanted a list of members.
 
Seeing how the IRS is targeting groups I can see what the GOP wants to keep that information private.Keeping the donors private protects the donors from harassment by opposition groups ie Democrat lawmakers. Sort of like NAACP vs Alabama when Alabama wanted a list of members.

Saying that its legal to donate as much money as you want to a Super PAC lawyers can do little to nothing. But im glad you wanna see hows buying influence to our politicians. I mean transparency sucks.
 
That's hardly territory exclusive to republicans, but I agree they are wrong on this issue. People should be allowed to contribute any amount they like to any candidate they like. In return, every candidate should release his list of donors and how much they contributed. If someone is trying to buy an election or buy a candidate through massive contributions, the voters should know who is pulling whose strings before they pull the lever in the voting booth.

That's little protection when everyone on the ballot is bought and paid for by a small wealthy elite. You seem to think that there is a magical candidate who isn't taking corporate bribes who can afford to campaign on the same level as those who are. The reality is that the majority of voters are swayed by attack ads and saturation of a candidate. Telling everyone about the corporate donors buying your opponent's allegiance costs money that these superior candidates don't have.

We need less money in the political process, not more.
 
Saying that its legal to donate as much money as you want to a Super PAC lawyers can do little to nothing. But im glad you wanna see hows buying influence to our politicians. I mean transparency sucks.
I am for government transparency.I am however not for people being harassed because they choose to donate to a particular person or group.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]


Video @: GOP bill designed to keep secret the IDs of campaign donors - YouTube

Yup... Remember that thing about transparency? Yea the GOP hates that, they are not much into that. They want to hide everyone contributing to their campaigns.. So I have to ask "what are they hiding"? This is clear. Its not about "free speech", its about channeling secret money.

And this bill is ?

Can't discuss it if I can't read it. There are numerous versions of bills and I'd like to know which one he's trying to discuss.
 
Hell, while we're at it, let's make ballots public, too.
 
I am for government transparency.I am however not for people being harassed because they choose to donate to a particular person or group.

When you donate to a campaign you are partaking in a political process, and the process should be as transparent as possible. If you cant handle politics for your donation then you shouldnt be involved in the political process.
 
Hell, while we're at it, let's make ballots public, too.

15ry0r5.jpg
 
When you donate to a campaign you are partaking in a political process, and the process should be as transparent as possible. If you cant handle politics for your donation then you shouldnt be involved in the political process.

So if some pro-life "extremists"decided to post the names of all the planned parenthood donors then you would be cool with that? My political participation is my business just as your political participation is your business.I should not have to worry about a bunch of left wing loonies harassing me because of the way I vote or donate my money and you should not have to worry about a bunch of right wing loonies harassing you because of how you vote or donate your money. I watch MSNBC occasionally so I understand the whole them thar e-vile Coke Brothers donating money mantra they love to spew. For ever rich conservative or republican donor there is a liberal equivalent. The fact is you people only want this called transparency regarding donors so your ilk can harass the donors.This is why there is privacy laws, its also why votes are private.
 
Last edited:
So if some pro-life "extremists"decided to post the names of all the planned parenthood donors then you would be cool with that?

Absolutely. You influence the political game with $$$ you should be out in the open.

My political participation is my business just as your political participation is your business.
This is like saying everything should be done behind close doors. All governing, everything because of "political participation is private business" when in fact political participation in a democracy is not private, its public!
I should not have to worry about a bunch of left wing loonies harassing me because of the way I vote or donate my money and you should not have to worry about a bunch of right wing loonies harassing you because of how you vote or donate your money. I watch MSNBC occasionally so I understand the whole them thar e-vile Coke Brothers donating money mantra they love to spew. For ever rich conservative or republican donor there is a liberal equivalence.
Oh cuz the right wing never "harasses" any left wing groups :roll:
 
That's little protection when everyone on the ballot is bought and paid for by a small wealthy elite. You seem to think that there is a magical candidate who isn't taking corporate bribes who can afford to campaign on the same level as those who are.
Actually, it is you who is pretending that isn't happening now.
The reality is that the majority of voters are swayed by attack ads and saturation of a candidate.
Is that true? I think the vast majority of voters pretty much know which party they align with and who they are going to vote for. TV ads sway those who don't pay attention to whats going on around them.
We need less money in the political process, not more.
Influencing elections is every bit as much a right as voting. What we need is less power in the hands of government and less money will flow in the form of influence. If a senator cant do anything for you or against you, you aren't going to send him any cash.
 
Seeing how the IRS is targeting groups I can see what the GOP wants to keep that information private.Keeping the donors private protects the donors from harassment by opposition groups ie Democrat lawmakers. Sort of like NAACP vs Alabama when Alabama wanted a list of members.
The IRS is not targeting any specific group. All of those House investigations came up empty-handed. However, the IRS does have a duty to enforce the law, which states that groups that receive tax-exempt status can't be political in nature. To determine that, the IRS has to ask questions.

Having donors secret opens the door to foreign entities influencing American elections. Do you want Saudi princes secretly making campaign donations?
 
So if some pro-life "extremists"decided to post the names of all the planned parenthood donors then you would be cool with that? My political participation is my business just as your political participation is your business.I should not have to worry about a bunch of left wing loonies harassing me because of the way I vote or donate my money and you should not have to worry about a bunch of right wing loonies harassing you because of how you vote or donate your money. I watch MSNBC occasionally so I understand the whole them thar e-vile Coke Brothers donating money mantra they love to spew. For ever rich conservative or republican donor there is a liberal equivalent. The fact is you people only want this called transparency regarding donors so your ilk can harass the donors.This is why there is privacy laws, its also why votes are private.

Applies to this post too.

Having donors secret opens the door to foreign entities influencing American elections. Do you want Saudi princes or a foreign government secretly making campaign donations?
 
Absolutely. You influence the political game with $$$ you should be out in the open.


This is like saying everything should be done behind close doors. All governing, everything because of "political participation is private business" when in fact political participation in a democracy is not private, its public!

Oh cuz the right wing never "harasses" any left wing groups :roll:

Everyone should be free from harassment, regardless of party.
 
I think the vast majority of voters pretty much know which party they align with and who they are going to vote for. TV ads sway those who don't pay attention to whats going on around them.

Which is why most districts' real contest is primary elections. That's why gerrymandering is such a huge problem. All competition from the other side is gone is most parts of the country and we have a single party rule. It's terrible.

Influencing elections is every bit as much a right as voting. What we need is less power in the hands of government and less money will flow in the form of influence. If a senator cant do anything for you or against you, you aren't going to send him any cash.

So you take away power from the government... who has it then? The extremely wealthy 1% who already exercise too much control. Your solution to the problem of corruption to simply take away the buffer against it.
 
Absolutely. You influence the political game with $$$ you should be out in the open.


This is like saying everything should be done behind close doors. All governing, everything because of "political participation is private business" when in fact political participation in a democracy is not private, its public!

Donating to political causes is not governing.Donating to a candidate is no different than voting.It should be private as long as people like to misuse government entities for political payback or people like to harass political opponents.


Oh cuz the right wing never "harasses" any left wing groups :roll:
I did say -
I should not have to worry about a bunch of left wing loonies harassing me because of the way I vote or donate my money and you should not have to worry about a bunch of right wing loonies harassing you because of how you vote or donate your money
 
That's little protection when everyone on the ballot is bought and paid for by a small wealthy elite. You seem to think that there is a magical candidate who isn't taking corporate bribes who can afford to campaign on the same level as those who are. The reality is that the majority of voters are swayed by attack ads and saturation of a candidate. Telling everyone about the corporate donors buying your opponent's allegiance costs money that these superior candidates don't have.

We need less money in the political process, not more.

Never going to happen.. we need more transparency. Money has always been in US politics.. How many of our founding fathers were dirt poor laborers with no connections?
 
The IRS is not targeting any specific group. All of those House investigations came up empty-handed. However, the IRS does have a duty to enforce the law, which states that groups that receive tax-exempt status can't be political in nature. To determine that, the IRS has to ask questions.

Liberals always claim the IRS is not targeting anyone even though some democrats have openly suggested using the IRS for targeting conservative groups.

Having donors secret opens the door to foreign entities influencing American elections. Do you want Saudi princes secretly making campaign donations?


A Saudi prince can not vote in an election.Unless of course that Saudi prince has dual citizenship or exce in states that do not need a state issued ID to vote.

I am not worried about campaign commercials,bumper stickers and campaign slogans. I am not influenced by those things and I am sure most people on DP are not influenced by those things.The people who are easily influenced by commercials are never going to take the time of day to actually research the candidates.These people like most Americans change the channel or put the tv on mute when ever commercials are on. If anything I am more worried about the media in general propping up candidates.Because all the talk show appearances,the media declaring the front runners, all the positive news stories of the media's favorite candidates while demonizing or just flat out ignoring the candidates they do like or want is what influences voters the most.Its how a no name senator got the name recognition he needed to become president.
 
Donating to political causes is not governing.
Its influencing the candidate, and has the power to influence governing decisions and the candidates views.

Donating to a candidate is no different than voting.
Really?
24qk5sl.jpg


It should be private as long as people like to misuse government entities for political payback or people like to harass political opponents.
So when you donate $1 million dollars to a SUPER PAC that supports x, y, or z candidate you dont expect political payback? Seriously?


I did say -
I should not have to worry about a bunch of left wing loonies harassing me because of the way I vote or donate my money and you should not have to worry about a bunch of right wing loonies harassing you because of how you vote or donate your money
I dont. I have donated to political campaigns and know many people have and you can look up their names on the FEC and not one of them nor myself have been harassed.
 
Which is why most districts' real contest is primary elections. That's why gerrymandering is such a huge problem. All competition from the other side is gone is most parts of the country and we have a single party rule. It's terrible.



So you take away power from the government... who has it then? The extremely wealthy 1% who already exercise too much control. Your solution to the problem of corruption to simply take away the buffer against it.
You know you have just said something here that I have never considered. Tell me I am essentially on the right track: Liberals see government as a form of self-empowerment, or a means to limit the power they perceive others have over them. You don't fear government really because you see government as an ally that helps even the playing field between those who have wealth and power and those who do not. Is that basically true or no? And if so, what sort of power do you fear the wealthy 1% exercise over you? It might be that since I have no fear of undo power of the wealthy that I don't look to the state to equalize things.
 
Back
Top Bottom