dagblog - Comments for "Debating Campaign Finance Disclosure"

I don't have a figure in

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:37:51 +0000

In reply to so, what dollar limit would

I don't have a figure in mind. Less that Adelson's 100 million and more than a thousand until further thought and discussion.

Your second sentence gets into a wide and far more complex discussion then I could credibly argue. I just pick at things that strike me as wrong.

One thing I will say that seems in line here: Why is it not even questioned that CEO's, in the name of their corporations, have the right to contribute a part of a stockholder's investment in an enterprise to the CEO's preferred candidate or party when that stockholder may have very different political views? This is usually put as an equivalent to unions supporting their preferences. In the union I belonged to, and I assume this is the common situation, a part of our dues, which we could set at our desired level, was allocated to the political action fund. The money that my union contributed to buy politicians was from funds voluntarily given for a known purpose.

so, what dollar limit would

Aunt Sam — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 04:12:49 +0000

In reply to My default position is to be

so, what dollar limit would you endorse for public disclosure reporting? I do believe that any contribution by a business or entity whether non-profit or for profit should be made public.

My default position is to be

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:48:50 +0000

In reply to It doesn't sound like we

My default position is to be against the government keeping any records of individuals that do not have a demonstrated benefit to the person or people being recorded, at least as a class. Then, make some exceptions based on good sense.

Small donations are important expressions available to a greater percentage of the masses but they do not buy politicians and so their being tied to particular individuals is not even potentially valuable. The big plays by the big players should be available information to the electorate. Who is it that says that?
The fear that bosses might not like who you contribute to is the very reason to not record who does the contributing below some arbitrary, and fairly large amount. .

It doesn't sound like we

Aunt Sam — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:31:44 +0000

In reply to Glad you got something from

It doesn't sound like we disagree on this, would you point out on this specific issue how we disagree, please? Thanks.

Glad you got something from

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:20:42 +0000

In reply to I watched and listened with

Glad you got something from it, Aunt Sam. I also came away with my ultimate judgment of Citizens United and big money in general, unchanged. But, the ins and outs of legislating control are much more complicated and subject to abuse then I had thought about.

I also do not have a problem, and in fact would probably endorse, keeping records of individual's donations under, say, five hundred dollars - but not publicly disclosing them unless there was fraud or other unlawful acts.

We disagree here. Disclosure is what it is all about, but I think records should be kept only of money over some fairly high amount, records of the screamers that would maybe like to drown out the speech of more average people. .

I watched and listened with

Aunt Sam — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:05:07 +0000

In reply to Debating Campaign Finance Disclosure

I watched and listened with great interest. Wow, so much there, but as far as my beliefs where CU is concerned I came away with my basic opinion about that it delivers a negative impact to our electoral process remains unchanged. Note: I will always have an issue when these type of 'discussions' are limited to members of one specific group within our societal realm. They can provide (and did) some interesting and needed points, but again, it is from only two people of the same socio-economic and for the most part, same societal (work, interests, education, etc.) grouping.

I do definitely agree about raising the individual's donation ability - as they said, this is still based on decades old financial value data rationales. I agree wholeheartedly with her about the accounting issue problems (regarding disclosure of contributors) for some entities as it is really a non-issue because it is easily remedied by base accounting practices.

I also do not have a problem, and in fact would probably endorse, keeping records of individual's donations under, say, five hundred dollars - but not publicly disclosing them unless there was fraud or other unlawful acts. I know many who fear contributing even small amounts of ten or twenty in case their boss or others check because of some form of, if not retribution, perhaps argument or other issues.

This would be great foundation/topic for blog.

Appreciate the link.

Twenty mill is kinda small

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 02:36:15 +0000

In reply to Uh,this does not mean that I

Twenty mill is kinda small potatoes. Talk to me when you are swingin' some weight.
I am curious though, did you watch it? Presentations of different kinds have different things to recommend them. To my mind, this was a debate and exchange of ideas between two sharp people that could not have been done as well in any other media form. Audio only would have been quite good but I always feel that, at least occasionally, it is good to see the people as they express themselves.

Uh,this does not mean that I

Richard Day — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 02:07:36 +0000

In reply to Debating Campaign Finance Disclosure

Uh,this does not mean that I have to disclose the twenty mill I gave to Mitt Campaign, does it?

I mean, what is twenty million bucks between friends after all?

I had never heard of Heather

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 23:43:06 +0000

In reply to Debating Campaign Finance Disclosure

I had never heard of Heather Gerken before but now I like her. At the same time, I am surprised at what I consider good arguments supporting Citizens United which I had also never heard.