This is the part that bothers me..." including legal trouble".
Are they gong to file lawsuits against the targeted donors?
Are they going to sue people for donating?
That worries me, the rest of the threats are meaningless.
Parados, you've missed the point.
A tremendous number of transactions occur every day with the expectation, not necessarily of anonymity, but at least indifference. You don't expect to be grilled on your political leanings when you go to the grocery store, fill up for a tank of gas, or punch in at work. You're -relying- on the people you deal with every day not to care, or at least not to actively refuse to deal with you because they don't like which way you swing.
As a society, we're okay with politicians going out there and taking their lumps in the public arena. They're politicians, after all; they volunteered to be in the public eye, as it were.
But if one side is going to target supporters... no, wait, let's hold up for a moment. "Target" how, exactly? Publicize their donations? As you've said, they're already public information. So what are they going to do to actually dissuade these donors? It doesn't take a genius, or even a moron, to figure out that they're suggesting a sort of collective action against the targeted people - anything from not inviting them to nice parties, to retaliation at the office, to the sort of harassment by official that I've alluded to. Unless this is just an empty gesture, right? I suppose that's possible - useless posturing in place of substantive action is hardly uncharacteristic for the left wing. ;p
But once you open that bottle, it's fair game for both sides, and the average liberal relies much more on large, conservative organizations playing nice than the average conservative does regarding liberal organizations. So if you don't want to go to the store, go to the cashier, and have them say "we're sorry, we're not going to accept your business, perhaps you'd like to go to the farmer's market on Wednesday morning or something," you really don't want to go down this road.
I agree.....we don't want to go down this road.
I guess this is a new kind of politics....politics of change.
Avatar ADV wrote:Parados, you've missed the point.
No, I didn't miss the point at all. In the real world people work with others that have opposite political viewpoints all the time. I know people I do business with are directly opposed to my viewpoint and they know I am opposed to theirs. We are still friends. We still do business. Do you really think people will stop doing business with Boone Pickens because he gave $3 million to the Swift Boat Veterans' for Truth? I doubt it. He has a product to sell. Some will do business because he gave money to the SBVT. Some might not do business because of it and most won't care as long as they get a decent price for the energy he sells them.
This isn't about me missing the point. It is about the author of this thread missing the point. Just because the group sends out a letter and publishes donors doesn't mean that the group is invading privacy or squashing political speech and certainly it is not committing black mail.
If people are going to not do business with other people because of their politics then this country needs change. If people are donating money to politics anonymously and getting rewarded by the people they paid to elect then this country needs change.
Sunshine is NOT a poison. When everyone knows who is donating what, it is not black mail. It is not an invasion of privacy. It is not some grand conspiracy. I am not missing the point at all. The point is that donating money means we should know who is trying to buy influence so we the public can be a check on that influence. I don't care left or right, democrat or republican.
What bothers me about 501(c)s is that someone can donate millions with the expectation to get billions in return and the public is kept in the dark. The $3 million Boone Pickens donated to the SBVT is a pittance compared to what he is getting from the Federal government in moneys for his wind turbines. Because I know he gave that money, because I know he is getting Federal money for wind power I can make a decision about whether he is getting a return that he would not have received if a democrat was in office.
Avatar ADV wrote:
So if you don't want to go to the store, go to the cashier, and have them say "we're sorry, we're not going to accept your business, perhaps you'd like to go to the farmer's market on Wednesday morning or something," you really don't want to go down this road.
If you really think Walmart (or any other retailer) is willing to decrease their market share (and their profit) by not selling to a large group of people then don't understand the way the US system works. No sane CEO would even think of doing such a thing. Any CEO that did do such a thing should be immediately removed by the board. Any board that doesn't remove such a CEO should be voted out by the shareholders. No shareholder wants to see their stock cut in half.
The consumer is a much stronger force than any CEO is. If consumers stop going to Walmart because of donations by Walmart's CEO then Walmart is hurt. Is it likely to happen? Probably not. If the ties are there for electoral shenanigans then it could happen. No company wants to be seen as trying to game the system
You forget that a significant majority of the stock of the nation's corporations is held by various mutual funds, in trust for retirement accounts and the like. That's a fairly small group of people, most of whom, I hate to say, are not noted for their flagrant liberalism. ;p
And of course Wal-Mart isn't going to unilaterally say "we don't deal with Obama supporters". But with this sort of thing, it tends to snowball - especially as the departure of the weakly-aligned under pressure makes the target group smaller and smaller. (Especially when you're talking political donations, which don't benefit the individual much at all; it's not hard to talk someone out of giving their money away.)
If you're worried about 501(c)s, then this is even worse - the organization in the original post -is- a 501(c). Which fat-cat moneybags is backing it, one wonders? You can't possibly know...
Avatar ADV wrote:You forget that a significant majority of the stock of the nation's corporations is held by various mutual funds, in trust for retirement accounts and the like. That's a fairly small group of people, most of whom, I hate to say, are not noted for their flagrant liberalism. ;p
Most of them are not noted for stupidity either. Making money requires selling to anyone that will buy.
Quote:
And of course Wal-Mart isn't going to unilaterally say "we don't deal with Obama supporters". But with this sort of thing, it tends to snowball - especially as the departure of the weakly-aligned under pressure makes the target group smaller and smaller. (Especially when you're talking political donations, which don't benefit the individual much at all; it's not hard to talk someone out of giving their money away.)
Maybe, maybe not. Lots of people feel strongly and are happy to give their money away no matter who knows it. The FEC reports contributions to campaigns but that doesn't make the money dry up. We are seeing MORE money this year than ever before. Anyone that gave more than $200 has their name out there to be found.
Quote:
If you're worried about 501(c)s, then this is even worse - the organization in the original post -is- a 501(c). Which fat-cat moneybags is backing it, one wonders? You can't possibly know...
Which has been my point all along. BOTH sides should be required to reveal contributors.
Here's the complete article
Here's the complete article:
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Why shouldent doners to any political organization be identified so people can see just who is supporting the various politicians. Might be some real surprises.
