Large donations to politicians have been made legal in the US, on the grounds that the money represents a persons speech. I donate to candidate X because I believe in candidate X. If you limit my donation you limit how much I can demonstrate my support.
The fear is that such donations are simple bribery. Make laws that I want and I give you cash.
A couple of years ago Target donated to a pro-business legislator who supported the expansion of big-box stores.
This legislator also was anti-gay rights.
When pro-gay rights organizations heard about this, they boycotted Target.
Target, who was advertising as hip and young, was hurt because being anti-gay rights is neither hip nor common with the young.
Other companies say this and pushed for anonymous donations to be allowed. They wanted to back people who agreed with them on some issues, but didn't want to be connected to those politicians when it came to more controversial issues.
You can not have free speech if that speech is threatened by retaliation, either from the government or from citizens.
The problem is that this allows lobbyists to buy access, and perhaps buy influence on those politicians. The companies have anonymity when it comes to the public, but they let the politicians know that they have donated to their cause, the size of that donation, and what they want in order to give the next donation.
Would a law making it illegal for anyone to tell a politician who made which anonymous contribution allow for free cash/speech while protecting the government from being bought out?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Such a law would be completely unenforceable.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
No, it would be difficult to enforce, and easy to avoid, but if a wire tap caught Lobbyist B saying, "Remember Govenor, it was Acme Co who donated that $50,000."--boom--caught and busted.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
"I donate to candidate X because I believe in candidate X. If you limit my donation you limit how much I can demonstrate my support."
As indicated by the reasoning behind its legalization, part of the speech aspect is that the company is telling the candidate that it supports the candidate--so the lawyers will argue (successfully). It is not just the candidate having cash that is the speech, but that you are giving it to them. If you make this law, they would rightfully argue that it is unconstitutional.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Nope....I feel we have a right to know where they are getting their cash for election/reelection.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: No, it would be difficult to enforce, and easy to avoid, but if a wire tap caught Lobbyist B saying, "Remember Govenor, it was Acme Co who donated that $50,000."--boom--caught and busted.
You are forgetting that you can't legally wire tap people without a warrant and you can't get a warrant without evidence. It's a logical possibility, but not a practical one.
Unless you are being overly literal, its fair to say such a law would be completely unenforceable.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are forgetting that you can't legally wire tap people without a warrant and you can't get a warrant without evidence. It's a logical possibility, but not a practical one.
Unless you are being overly literal, its fair to say such a law would be completely impractical to try enforce.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:You can not have free speech if that speech is threatened by retaliation, either from the government or from citizens.
I disagree with this. Free speech doesn't mean consequence-free speech, especially not when it comes to private citizens acting against other private citizens through non-violent means.
You have a right to say what you wish without being censored for political reasons by the government. But that doesn't mean the rest of society has a duty to subsidize or support you.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are forgetting that you can't legally wire tap people without a warrant and you can't get a warrant without evidence. It's a logical possibility, but not a practical one.
Unless you are being overly literal, its fair to say such a law would be completely impractical to try enforce.
I think this would be a little more accurate way to say it. After all, by your own admission it's possible, just highly impractical.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure if enforcement would be as hard as you think. There have been a couple good articles written this past year on campaign finance corruption. The FBI is great at investigating, and they find lots of bribery-like cases, but they can't prosecute because its all legal.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: No, it would be difficult to enforce, and easy to avoid, but if a wire tap caught Lobbyist B saying, "Remember Govenor, it was Acme Co who donated that $50,000."--boom--caught and busted.
That's not actually the biggest problem with unlimited campaign donations. Rather the opposite: "remember Governor, my company *has* $2 Million to spend on a candidate. It might not end up being you."