1A and Campaign Finance

[terryg]

The NRA was able to get exempted from the DISCLOSE act. Being a single issue organization, I do not fault them at all (as some do) for working toward and succeeding in getting themselves exempted. So while my question (following) is prompted by this legislation, I am curious on a more generally level about your thoughts on campaign finance reform and/or reporting.

AFAICT, The NRA effectively tied the reporting requirements to first amendment concerns - and I can see that linking. If the government can keep records of where individuals and organizations contribute money, what is to stop an agency from using those records nefariously.

On the other hand, would it not empower us, as voters, to know exactly who and how much campaign money came from various organizations? I certainly would not mind knowing how much money organizations such as moveon.org donated to a particular candidate. Whether I voted for that candidate or not, if they are elected to office, 'contributed money = promise of favor'. Having this information available helps put any perspective sponsored legislation in a new light.

So what do you guys think? Do the potential negative implications of this type or reform outweigh the benefits of voters knowing who is funding whom?

[psijac]

If you have something to say you should not be afraid of openly saying it. But I wonder why democrats are so against it. Surely some of their friends have deep pockets too.

[Purplehood]

Too much government for my taste.

[terryg]

Too much government for my taste.

Can you elaborate a little? Do you mean the reporting requirements would create more bureaucracy?

Wouldn't knowing who is funding our elected officials go a long way toward making government smaller?

[Purplehood]

Too much government for my taste.

Can you elaborate a little? Do you mean the reporting requirements would create more bureaucracy?

Wouldn't knowing who is funding our elected officials go a long way toward making government smaller?

Many of us advocate less government intrusion into our lives. To me this is simply an example of more government.

Read the Sci-Fi novel "Freehold" by Michael Z. Williamson and you will get a good idea of my version of Utopia.

[terryg]

Many of us advocate less government intrusion into our lives. To me this is simply an example of more government.

Read the Sci-Fi novel "Freehold" by Michael Z. Williamson and you will get a good idea of my version of Utopia.

I understand the sentiment of limited government. But I'm not sure I get the causality you propose. Government grows in leaps and bounds largely due to influence from special interest groups.

But I really am trying to understand this issue better, so I do thank you for your response.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

IMO, there should very well be disclosure of campaign donations over a certain limit, and a limit to total campaign financing based on the office. What those limits are, is certainly up for debate.

Even for the NRA.

The NRA is as capable as any other organization of shady dealings with our elected idi....er, representatives, and should be held accountable just like every other organization.

[The Annoyed Man]

If you have something to say you should not be afraid of openly saying it. But I wonder why democrats are so against it. Surely some of their friends have deep pockets too.

I read somewhere not too long ago that the average democrat donor is wealthier than the average republican donor. I don't know if it is true or not. But the reason the democrat party is against it is because they only believe in free speech for themselves. Everyone else can go to hades, as far as they are concerned.

[terryg]

IMO, there should very well be disclosure of campaign donations over a certain limit, and a limit to total campaign financing based on the office. What those limits are, is certainly up for debate.

Even for the NRA.

The NRA is as capable as any other organization of shady dealings with our elected idi....er, representatives, and should be held accountable just like every other organization.

Yeah. I didn't say I hold our legislature blameless for exempting a single organization. But the NRA believes this bill was bad for all groups and was able to get themselves exempted - I don't have any problem with them working to do that for themselves.

But it still leads me to wonder if this particular bill is simply written poorly or if there is something fundamentally wrong with the public knowing who has donated to any given candidates campaign. The only potential negative I can think of is the government keeping (and potentially using) lists on us that give them a pretty good idea of our belief systems.

Every other aspect of this type of information that I can think of would only seem to give power to the voters to make wiser decisions in the voting booths. I welcome other views so I can understand this issue better.

[bigred90gt]

The NRA was able to get exempted from the DISCLOSE act. Being a single issue organization, I do not fault them at all (as some do) for working toward and succeeding in getting themselves exempted. So while my question (following) is prompted by this legislation, I am curious on a more generally level about your thoughts on campaign finance reform and/or reporting.

AFAICT, The NRA effectively tied the reporting requirements to first amendment concerns - and I can see that linking. If the government can keep records of where individuals and organizations contribute money, what is to stop an agency from using those records nefariously.

On the other hand, would it not empower us, as voters, to know exactly who and how much campaign money came from various organizations? I certainly would not mind knowing how much money organizations such as moveon.org donated to a particular candidate. Whether I voted for that candidate or not, if they are elected to office, 'contributed money = promise of favor'. Having this information available helps put any perspective sponsored legislation in a new light.

So what do you guys think? Do the potential negative implications of this type or reform outweigh the benefits of voters knowing who is funding whom?

Just curious, do you have a problem with all groups, representing things you do and do not believe in, being eligible for exemption from this legislation?

The same argument you make in your last post can be made for any group. People who, for whatever ignorant reason they can come up with, are against guns, can make the same argument about the NRA being exempted. Either ALL donations should be disclosed, or NONE should be disclosed, but certain groups should not be exempt from disclosing their donations while others are not eligible for the same exemption. You say you wouldn't mind knowing how much money moveon.org donated to a particular candidate, and that's fine, but then everyone should also know how much money the NRA has donated to a particular candidate for the same reasons.

[terryg]

Just curious, do you have a problem with all groups, representing things you do and do not believe in, being eligible for exemption from this legislation?

Yes, I have a huge problem with laws not being applied unilaterally.

The same argument you make in your last post can be made for any group. People who, for whatever ignorant reason they can come up with, are against guns, can make the same argument about the NRA being exempted. Either ALL donations should be disclosed, or NONE should be disclosed, but certain groups should not be exempt from disclosing their donations while others are not eligible for the same exemption. You say you wouldn't mind knowing how much money moveon.org donated to a particular candidate, and that's fine, but then everyone should also know how much money the NRA has donated to a particular candidate for the same reasons.

Yes, I agree completely. I am sorry if that was not clear. I said:

I do not fault them at all (as some do) for working toward and succeeding in getting themselves exempted.

'Them' - meaning I do not fault the NRA. Then, in a latter post, I said:

Yeah. I didn't say I hold our legislature blameless for exempting a single organization. But the NRA believes this bill was bad for all groups and was able to get themselves exempted - I don't have any problem with them working to do that for themselves.

If the Brady Campaign or moveon.org did not believe this was a good bill and worked to get themselves exempted, I would not blame THEM for working to that end. But the legislature should not have let it happen.

But, more specifically, other special interest groups were upset with the NRA for only getting themselves exempted. IMO, the NRA only has a responsibility to itself and its members. So I was primarily meaning that I didn't think they should be faulted for only looking after their own backsides.

---

However, I only mentioned any of this so that we could get it out of the way and focus on my primary question which is something like: Why would this sort of legislation (even if not this particular bill) not be a good idea?

[Bart]

I can't find anything in the constitution that allows the government to track how citizens spend the 50% of their money that doesn't go to the government for taxes, fees, etc.

[LarryH]

I believe Charles (and the NRA) has said that they merely told Congress they would not support the bill. NRA did not ask for or demand exemption, Congress came up with that on their own.

I don't have time to search for that post right now, but the DISCLOSE act has been discussed on the forum before.

[Ameer]

In our history books, King George looks like low tax, benevolent, hands off ruler compared to Bush and Obama.

[terryg]

I can't find anything in the constitution that allows the government to track how citizens spend the 50% of their money that doesn't go to the government for taxes, fees, etc.

There are lots of laws and regulations about lots of things that aren't detailed in the constitution. This is not to say that all of them are desirable, but some of the are. For example, the constitution does not specify that trial juries be made up of peers. The constitution is a framework that, IMO, is intentionally rigid and specific in some places such as "the RKBA shall not be infringed" while vague in others "Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes".

But in the end, I think you are arguing that by tracking campaign donations, we would be giving the government data that could be used against us - much like the concerns over gun registration. I do understand that argument/concern. I'm just not convinced, at this point, that the danger posed by such data outweighs the danger posed by continuing to allow special interest groups to yield as much influence over our government as they now do - and so much of it in secret.