Campaign Donor Disclosure Bill

[dayman]

You gotta weigh the pros & cons. I know we like to think the days of Woodrow Wilson & FDR, when govt. goons could shake down political trouble makers, are over, but to me it seems the potential for abuse outweighs our interest in getting the names behind the info. If the info's bunk, discredit it.

 

 

Then we get what we basically have now. Bunk info from both sides, and a constant war to out "bunkify" the market...they don't even talk to each other they talk at fictitious caricatures of the other guy (both sides are exactly equal in that btw even though I know a lot of people on this board believe some of the ridiculous ways Obama is characterized as)....efforts to discredit are rarely effective even assuming they sometimes are then it's just an effort to out bunk and then discredit the other bunk. It's nonsense. And it won't change with this bill, let me be clear on that. But people will have more ammo to dig through WHY what they are seeing/hearing is what they are seeing/hearing and I don't care who you are you typically want to know who the hell is talking.

 

There's no way vague and uncertain arguments about political shake downs and private employment backlash (when you give 10K lol) outweigh a clear, identifiable disclosure interest that ALL AMERICANS (dem or rep) share.

[Rob's House]

Then we get what we basically have now. Bunk info from both sides, and a constant war to out "bunkify" the market...they don't even talk to each other they talk at fictitious caricatures of the other guy (both sides are exactly equal in that btw even though I know a lot of people on this board believe some of the ridiculous ways Obama is characterized as)....efforts to discredit are rarely effective even assuming they sometimes are then it's just an effort to out bunk and then discredit the other bunk. It's nonsense. And it won't change with this bill, let me be clear on that. But people will have more ammo to dig through WHY what they are seeing/hearing is what they are seeing/hearing and I don't care who you are you typically want to know who the hell is talking.

 

There's no way vague and uncertain arguments about political shake downs and private employment backlash (when you give 10K lol) outweigh a clear, identifiable disclosure interest that ALL AMERICANS (dem or rep) share.

Yeah, I hear you, but I'm not that worried about it. No matter how hard I try, I just can't get worried about it.

[dayman]

Yeah, I hear you, but I'm not that worried about it. No matter how hard I try, I just can't get worried about it.

 

 

That's the thing though, the way I see it you don't have to be worried about it. You just have to say...if in the event I someday am or want to know more...would I like that information to be there for me up-to-date and including "social welfare superPACS?" If the answer is ... yes ... then why would you not support it. It's simply disclosure and there is nothing complicated about it...there's really no concrete or significant argument against it...everyone should just...support it. Whether you want to know or don't...support being able to know.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Freedom of speech doesn't exist if your exercise of it is catalouged in a government database. End of discussion.

[Rob's House]

That's the thing though, the way I see it you don't have to be worried about it. You just have to say...if in the event I someday am or want to know more...would I like that information to be there for me up-to-date and including "social welfare superPACS?" If the answer is ... yes ... then why would you not support it. It's simply disclosure and there is nothing complicated about it...there's really no concrete or significant argument against it...everyone should just...support it. Whether you want to know or don't...support being able to know.

In addition to what TTYT just said, which pretty well sums it up, I don't see the value in it. So I can find out who donated to that PAC. So what? All the info I get from anywhere needs to be scrutinized including mass media coverage. I just don't see a lot of value in it. Plus, leftists are very emotional & vindictive when people don't agree with them (see "Color of Change). This looks more like a way to identify and punish "our enemies", as Obama refers to us, more than an attempt to further accuracy in advertising.

 

Edit: and why haven't you posted in the "What has Obama Done..." thread?

Edited July 17, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

Freedom of speech doesn't exist if your exercise of it is catalouged in a government database. End of discussion.

 

There's a reason you aren't on the Supreme Court. Glad that ended the discussion though. Enjoy your (even more than ever) bull **** political advertisement system while it lasts b/c sooner or later (maybe not this election) your precious, fictitious, anonymous $4 million dollar advertising drops are going to go away. I guess we'll be China then. I'm glad you are happy with things as is. And just so all you know, it's not really even the Presidential election that's the worst. If you want to know the true nonsense it's the Senate races. The Senate money (and to a muchlesser extent the house) is where America is truly bought and sold. And it's not a Republican/Democrat thing...a lot of times (particularly where I'm at and w/ the house campaigns) it's bought-Republican v. actual-citizen-Republican. Spoiler alert, the bought guy always wins.

[Rob's House]

There's a reason you aren't on the Supreme Court. Glad that ended the discussion though. Enjoy your (even more than ever) bull **** political advertisement system while it lasts b/c sooner or later (maybe not this election) your precious, fictitious, anonymous $4 million dollar advertising drops are going to go away. I guess we'll be China then. I'm glad you are happy with things as is. And just so all you know, it's not really even the Presidential election that's the worst. If you want to know the true nonsense it's the Senate races. The Senate money (and to a muchlesser extent the house) is where America is truly bought and sold. And it's not a Republican/Democrat thing...a lot of times (particularly where I'm at and w/ the house campaigns) it's bought-Republican v. actual-citizen-Republican. Spoiler alert, the bought guy always wins.

Do you have any examples of the lies that have been perpetrated by these PACs?

[3rdnlng]

That's the thing though, the way I see it you don't have to be worried about it. You just have to say...if in the event I someday am or want to know more...would I like that information to be there for me up-to-date and including "social welfare superPACS?" If the answer is ... yes ... then why would you not support it. It's simply disclosure and there is nothing complicated about it...there's really no concrete or significant argument against it...everyone should just...support it. Whether you want to know or don't...support being able to know.

 

You can't have it both ways. You want donors identified within 24 hours and then tell Rob that he might want to be able to look up that information "someday"?. Anyway, Tom's concern about being identified for donating to a certain candidate is sort of moot. If he gives over $200 he'll eventually be identified under current law. The problem with the proposed bill is that it treats certain groups differently. Per the article you linked to "membership" groups are exempt. That is what makes this a political football. The Republicans don't want the unions to be able to donate anonymously. I wonder if the bill would pass if no one was exempt?

[dayman]

 

I should have known given this is PPP that people here generally would fight/vote against their ability to know things. Turn on a tv in a swing state.

 

It isn't complicated, it isn't about your freedom of speech being eroded, it's very simple. Large donors to anonymous PACs that represent a handful of people shaping the public discussion is something some people want to know about. That is all. If other normal people tell them "no it's not FREE SPEECH" or "c'mon man the superPACS are good" then so be it. This is America.

 

You can't have it both ways. You want donors identified within 24 hours and then tell Rob that he might want to be able to look up that information "someday"?. Anyway, Tom's concern about being identified for donating to a certain candidate is sort of moot. If he gives over $200 he'll eventually be identified under current law. The problem with the proposed bill is that it treats certain groups differently. Per the article you linked to "membership" groups are exempt. That is what makes this a political football. The Republicans don't want the unions to be able to donate anonymously. I wonder if the bill would pass if no one was exempt?

 

GOP has huge membership groups that dominate it. Gun lobby for one. And like I said I don't even care if the number drops to include them. GREAT! And the "someday" was saying that even if he didn't want to look it up now ... he could if he did. Put down the beer it's a weekday.

Edited July 17, 2012 by TheNewBills

[/dev/null]

Freedom of speech doesn't exist if your exercise of it is catalouged in a government database. End of discussion.

Silly Libertarian, you have no inherent right to free speech. Rights are bestowed upon the people the benevolent and magnanimous state

[Rob's House]

 

I should have known given this is PPP that people here generally would fight/vote against their ability to know things. Turn on a tv in a swing state.

 

It isn't complicated, it isn't about your freedom of speech being eroded, it's very simple. Large donors to anonymous PACs that represent a handful of people shaping the public discussion is something some people want to know about. That is all. If other normal people tell them "no it's not FREE SPEECH" or "c'mon man the superPACS are good" then so be it. This is America.

Don't get frustrated. We just don't take it at face value. whatever the government forces my neighbor to disclose to me I am also forced to disclose to him. Of course with this bill he may be the only one who has to disclose; that also means I may be the only one who has to disclose.

[dayman]

Silly Libertarian, you have no inherent right to free speech. Rights are bestowed upon the people the benevolent and magnanimous state

 

 

And thus the "government bad, me Tarzan" sentiment rears its head to nonsensically justify anything the GOP does as "pro-people" even when it's anti-people.

 

Why it's so hard to wake up and actually be somewhat independent even if it means criticizing your own party...I will never know. It's not that hard. You aren't ACTUALLY a Republican you know, you are an American. You can think whatever you want on issues and still generally associate with the side that you overall support given the options. Everything that comes out of Obamas mouth, or Romney's mouth, or the house consensus, or the Senate...it's all fair game. Stop being so predisposed to agree with "who you are supposed to agree with" on each issue.

Edited July 17, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

 

I should have known given this is PPP that people here generally would fight/vote against their ability to know things. Turn on a tv in a swing state.

 

It isn't complicated, it isn't about your freedom of speech being eroded, it's very simple. Large donors to anonymous PACs that represent a handful of people shaping the public discussion is something some people want to know about. That is all. If other normal people tell them "no it's not FREE SPEECH" or "c'mon man the superPACS are good" then so be it. This is America.

 

 

 

GOP has huge membership groups that dominate it. Gun lobby for one. And like I said I don't even care if the number drops to include them. GREAT! And the "someday" was saying that even if he didn't want to look it up now ... he could if he did. Put down the beer it's a weekday.

 

 

The NRA is certainly not exclusive to the GOP, while unions are pretty much lock stock and barrel tight with the Dems. Anyway if they want to get this bill passed they can't exempt any particulars groups.

[jjamie12]

The campaigns themselves are fine. Law requiring disclosure superPac information more quickly is something you are against why exactly? You don't want to know stuff quickly and are emotional in defending your right to be kept stupid?

A couple of points:

 

1) There is real reason for some people to fear political retribution. I don't find that hugely important, but it's certainly worth considering.

 

2) There's no real consensus that says that ABSOLUTELY money really affects the outcome of political races. There is some evidence that in some circumstances there might be some benefit. That hardly seems like a big enough reason to waste even more money on something that 99.99% of Americans won't even think of attempting to use.

 

What problem are you trying to fix? I know, I know. It's David Brooks. Whatever -- He's a reasonable person.

 

3) What would you do with the information? Why do you care so much that "The Koch Brothers" give eleventy million dollars to Karl Rove to create attack ads. Let's say you knew this to be absolutely true, rather than just 'suspecting' it. What would change for you? What do you think the American electorate would do with this information (Other than, you know, completely ignore it like they do all of the campaign financing lists/donors/yadda yadda yadda)?

 

Given that there are (1 from above) potential real consequences to what you're proposing, along with the (2 from above) lack of a clear problem, and since (3 from above) it isn't real clear to me that the information would actually be beneficial anyway, it doesn't seem like a super-great idea for anybody to be spending a single second thinking about this, voting on this, or worse yet, spending money to create oversight for this.

 

I'd also like to add that this is all political theater. If you don't believe me, come back in a year and see how much chatter there is about Voter ID's and Campaign Finance (My guess is zero). These are perfect issues to 'get people fired up' during campaign season.

[/dev/null]

And thus the "government bad, me Tarzan" sentiment rears its head to nonsensically justify anything the GOP does as "pro-people" even when it's anti-people.

 

Why it's so hard to wake up and actually be somewhat independent even if it means criticizing your own party...I will never know. It's not that hard. You aren't ACTUALLY a Republican you know, you are an American. You can think whatever you want on issues and still generally associate with the side that you overall support given the options. Everything that comes out of Obamas mouth, or Romney's mouth, or the house consensus, or the Senate...it's all fair game. Stop being so predisposed to agree with "who you are supposed to agree with" on each issue.

 

Where have I identified myself as a Republican or expressed an affinity towards the GOP?

 

Go ahead, find a quote. I'll wait for you

[dayman]

PPP...where a topic about simple disclosure for large donations to PACs in time to know who is doing the talking while you are listening...and not one single poster just says "you know, you are right TNB that really isn't that complicated, and I wouldn't mind being able to know."

 

 

Instead, extended basic freedom arguments (the bill is unambiguously constitutional btw). Arguments about the potential effects of 3rd parties knowing you support a candidate (to the tune of 10K no less we're talking SUPPORT). Arguments that money doesn't effect politics in any meaningful way proven with exact science (lol) and so there is no problem...it's not a "problem" that a handful of people give so much money that run tv ads that play such a visible role in shaping the public debate and yet they aren't revealing themselves to the public...arguments that the information is useless that it doesn't matter WHO gives these large chunks of cash to spookyPACS b/c somehow it doesn't matter who says what only that it is said (this might be my favorite), and of course that it's all partisan political theater of no value to society other than to help the democrats b/c nobody really needs or wants disclosure (the very remedy the supreme court listed as a the solution to possible problems with Citizens United).

 

Anything under the sun accept a practical "Hmmm, ok I guess I would like to be able to know. I see no reason to oppose being able to know. It seems to be in my interest to be for this as opposed to against it."

 

Shaking my head guys, shaking my head. This and tort reform...two things I will never understand why people are so against themselves.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

PPP...where a topic about simple disclosure for large donations to PACs in time to know who is doing the talking while you are listening...and not one single poster just says "you know, you are right TNB that really isn't that complicated, and I wouldn't mind being able to know."

 

 

Instead, extended basic freedom arguments (the bill is unambiguously constitutional btw). Arguments about the potential effects of 3rd parties knowing you support a candidate (to the tune of 10K no less we're talking SUPPORT). Arguments that money doesn't effect politics in any meaningful way proven with exact science (lol) and so there is no problem...it's not a "problem" that a handful of people give so much money that run tv ads that play such a visible role in shaping the public debate and yet they aren't revealing themselves to the public...arguments that the information is useless that it doesn't matter WHO gives these large chunks of cash to spookyPACS b/c somehow it doesn't matter who says what only that it is said (this might be my favorite), and of course that it's all partisan political theater of no value to society other than to help the democrats b/c nobody really needs or wants disclosure (the very remedy the supreme court listed as a the solution to possible problems with Citizens United).

 

Anything under the sun accept a practical "Hmmm, ok I guess I would like to be able to know. I see no reason to oppose being able to know. It seems to be in my interest to be for this as opposed to against it."

 

Shaking my head guys, shaking my head. This and tort reform...two things I will never understand why people are so against themselves.

 

The article you linked to didn't get very deep into the subject. The author touched on the fact that certain entities were "memberships" and would be treated differently. Face it, there is a reason this has been decided on absolute party lines. It's obviously a "Trojan Horse" type of deal. Do you wonder why McCain voted against it? He was a big proponent of finance reform and his bill got overuled. He also has been known for crossing the aisle. Why would he vote against it if there wasn't something fishy about it?

[Rob's House]

PPP...where a topic about simple disclosure for large donations to PACs in time to know who is doing the talking while you are listening...and not one single poster just says "you know, you are right TNB that really isn't that complicated, and I wouldn't mind being able to know."

 

Edit: and you still haven't posted in the Obamanomics thread to explain why his actions are preferable to inaction.

Instead, extended basic freedom arguments (the bill is unambiguously constitutional btw). Arguments about the potential effects of 3rd parties knowing you support a candidate (to the tune of 10K no less we're talking SUPPORT). Arguments that money doesn't effect politics in any meaningful way proven with exact science (lol) and so there is no problem...it's not a "problem" that a handful of people give so much money that run tv ads that play such a visible role in shaping the public debate and yet they aren't revealing themselves to the public...arguments that the information is useless that it doesn't matter WHO gives these large chunks of cash to spookyPACS b/c somehow it doesn't matter who says what only that it is said (this might be my favorite), and of course that it's all partisan political theater of no value to society other than to help the democrats b/c nobody really needs or wants disclosure (the very remedy the supreme court listed as a the solution to possible problems with Citizens United).

 

Anything under the sun accept a practical "Hmmm, ok I guess I would like to be able to know. I see no reason to oppose being able to know. It seems to be in my interest to be for this as opposed to against it."

 

Shaking my head guys, shaking my head. This and tort reform...two things I will never understand why people are so against themselves.

You can't honestly say it's unambiguously constitutional. The constitution expressly states that congress shall pass no laws infringing on the freedom of speech. And while this doesn't directly inhibit free speech it could do so indirectly, and the court has recognized far more tenuous associations in the past. You may not think it is repugnant to the constitution, but it is a display of algorian hubris to say that it is decided beyond question.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[jjamie12]

PPP...where a topic about simple disclosure for large donations to PACs in time to know who is doing the talking while you are listening...and not one single poster just says "you know, you are right TNB that really isn't that complicated, and I wouldn't mind being able to know."

 

 

Instead, extended basic freedom arguments (the bill is unambiguously constitutional btw). Arguments about the potential effects of 3rd parties knowing you support a candidate (to the tune of 10K no less we're talking SUPPORT). Arguments that money doesn't effect politics in any meaningful way proven with exact science (lol) and so there is no problem...it's not a "problem" that a handful of people give so much money that run tv ads that play such a visible role in shaping the public debate and yet they aren't revealing themselves to the public...arguments that the information is useless that it doesn't matter WHO gives these large chunks of cash to spookyPACS b/c somehow it doesn't matter who says what only that it is said (this might be my favorite), and of course that it's all partisan political theater of no value to society other than to help the democrats b/c nobody really needs or wants disclosure (the very remedy the supreme court listed as a the solution to possible problems with Citizens United).

 

Anything under the sun accept a practical "Hmmm, ok I guess I would like to be able to know. I see no reason to oppose being able to know. It seems to be in my interest to be for this as opposed to against it."

 

Shaking my head guys, shaking my head. This and tort reform...two things I will never understand why people are so against themselves.

You know, the "righty" version of you is sitting out there saying exactly the same thing about Voter ID cards.

 

Just because you don't "understand" it, doesn't mean that everyone else is hopelessly wrong and you're the one beacon of reason shining out into the ignorant morass of PPP.

 

Edit: And for the record -- I'm arguing against this because, in general, I would like to see the Federal Government limit it's own powers and only expand them when necessary. To date, I haven't seen any real reason to believe that there is a 'problem', and since I don't see a real problem (nor do I think the referenced bill will actually *do* anything to solve the 'problem' as you see it) then I would like them to just stay the hell out of it and do something, you know, useful with their time. And if you DON'T think this is political theater, then I don't know what to tell you. One of us will be right and one of us will be wrong, I suppose. I guess we'll have to wait a year and find out.

Edited July 18, 2012 by jjamie12

[3rdnlng]

You know, the "righty" version of you is sitting out there saying exactly the same thing about Voter ID cards.

 

Just because you don't "understand" it, doesn't mean that everyone else is hopelessly wrong and you're the one beacon of reason shining out into the ignorant morass of PPP.

 

Give him a little credit. He's at least pitching this in a non pBills way. I think we conservatives can debate with him. It's not like he is accusing us of not wanting stop signs because we question global warming (like all the other libtards). The bill was proposed by liberal democrats for a purpose. NewBills is probably a good guy that I'd have a beer summit with. We just need to bring him around.