I have to admit, campaign finance laws is an issue which makes me dizzy. With regard to this article and what it mentions, why do I need to know who donates to whom? My focus is always on policy and I don't understand why anyone worries about how much money is raised. If Dems raise fourteen gazillion dollars, most coming from, say, George Soros, I'm still arguing on the world-class stupidity and destructiveness of their policies and proposals. If, say 95% agree with me on that, and the other support assholes like Soros donating such a sum of money, how can that sum induce any of the 95% to support them?
Anyhow, that's just one aspect of this issue which I don't get. I'll have to again try to dig more deeply and find a way to understand what these types of laws are intended to achieve.
As I see it that's a different argument. The law, as it exists now, is what it is. Trump was "convicted" for violating campaign finance laws, Clinton should be held to account for it.
Further, I think it's important to know who (especially foreign entities) are supporting candidates with big money donations. Biden magically got a $64,000,000 dark money donation that no one can identify. From someone in Ukraine as a quid pro quo?
In general, I believe that more information is better than less. That sunshine is the best disinfectant. That things that are hidden, tend to be things people don't want to see.
I agree with you that I tend towards loosening restrictions on amounts donated, but I firmly believe that the identity of the donors should be known.
This is more about pointing out the double standards of the left, than a comment on campaign finance laws.
OK. I don't necessarily see a problem in theory. But it is considered noble to make charitable donations in secret, never letting on you've made them, the secret between the donor and God. Would this not be a similar situation? The quid pro quo issue is valid, but I'm more concerned with what a politician's record suggests and what proposals they present to draw support.
Not at all. The notion of keeping charitable donations silent is scriptural, not anything else. Maybe you are unaware of how many people make public charitable donations.
A political contribution, especially from interest groups or businesses, carries an implicit quid pro quo with it. Especially when it's millions of dollars from an unknown source. Not only that but do we really want foreign governments secretly donating to political candidates?
" Maybe you are unaware of how many people make public charitable donations."
Fully aware, but that's a personal choice, often made for appearance sake. The Scriptural encouragement to do good deeds in private is a direct rebuke of charity for self-promotion.
A political donation is not completely distinct from a charitable one. I contribute...where I've actually done so...to those I though would be good people to have in those positions because of the benefits to whatever population they serve. That is, I can give some money to the needy (which I still do, but roll with me here) and thus they eat a fish, or I can give some to those I think will be good servants of the people, and the result is more people learning how to fish for themselves.
And even with this, there is still and always a quid pro quo. I donate and expect certain actions to be taken, just like the rich dudes who might flood a campaign. I see nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when a politician changes his position and/or plans in order to get the donation. And if we have a list of all donors, how does that allow us to know when and if such a thing happened and who on that list was the guy who succeeded in bribing the politician to do something harmful to us but beneficial to the donor?
This is true of foreign donors as well. The higher up the politician, the more impact on a global scale by his policies. And while I get the concerns, a true bribe can be made and accepted regardless of how the campaign finance rules are set up.
Given what I've said, if you can fill in what I'm missing which subordinates it all to the cause you're promoting, I wouldn't be upset to hear it in the least. As I said, the issue is not at all my forte. I've much to learn.
Which I believe I pointed out. I was unaware that scripture was the basis for campaign finance laws.
While your justification makes some sense for individual donors, it makes less sense when it comes to institutional donors. The fact that you seem to see campaign donations as acceptable quid pro quo, the reality is that your small donation is unlikely to tempt a politician to change their position on something, whereas a donation of millions is more likely to do so.
I'm not sure what you're asking for. Our current election law is what it is, Trump was convicted of various felonies under a misapplication of our current law, Hillary blatantly violated it. If your argument is that changing campaign finance law to be less transparent about who donors are, then it seems incumbent on you to argue why your version is superior.
Now, as pertains the disparity between how Trump and Hillary the Hag was treated as regards campaign finance laws, that's a separate issue. If they both broke the law in relatively the same way, they should face the legal consequences. But the way you describe it, that was not the case. Regardless, I've made my case by questioning why listing donor names is necessary.
To that, I'd also say that as a candidate, if I got tens of thousands from Vladmir Putin, I don't see why his donation should be a concern unless someone can prove I'm doing something I'd never do if not for his money. I'd take every dollar anyone wants to send me, because I want to be able to do what I want to get done...those things I promised in my campaign and which I think are important and beneficial to all constituents.
Said another way, I'd take donations from Dan. If he thinks by donating to me I'm going to support sexual perversion and the fictitious abortion rights, he'll be disappointed. I wouldn't care if people know he donated or not. All that matters is that I'm sticking to my platform. If I don't, no one will care about donations, because the policies I enact are what matter.
And if someone wants to argue that I will not be true to my campaign promises because of who donates how much, it wont' matter. I'll lose.
7 comments:
I have to admit, campaign finance laws is an issue which makes me dizzy. With regard to this article and what it mentions, why do I need to know who donates to whom? My focus is always on policy and I don't understand why anyone worries about how much money is raised. If Dems raise fourteen gazillion dollars, most coming from, say, George Soros, I'm still arguing on the world-class stupidity and destructiveness of their policies and proposals. If, say 95% agree with me on that, and the other support assholes like Soros donating such a sum of money, how can that sum induce any of the 95% to support them?
Anyhow, that's just one aspect of this issue which I don't get. I'll have to again try to dig more deeply and find a way to understand what these types of laws are intended to achieve.
Art,
As I see it that's a different argument. The law, as it exists now, is what it is. Trump was "convicted" for violating campaign finance laws, Clinton should be held to account for it.
Further, I think it's important to know who (especially foreign entities) are supporting candidates with big money donations. Biden magically got a $64,000,000 dark money donation that no one can identify. From someone in Ukraine as a quid pro quo?
In general, I believe that more information is better than less. That sunshine is the best disinfectant. That things that are hidden, tend to be things people don't want to see.
I agree with you that I tend towards loosening restrictions on amounts donated, but I firmly believe that the identity of the donors should be known.
This is more about pointing out the double standards of the left, than a comment on campaign finance laws.
OK. I don't necessarily see a problem in theory. But it is considered noble to make charitable donations in secret, never letting on you've made them, the secret between the donor and God. Would this not be a similar situation? The quid pro quo issue is valid, but I'm more concerned with what a politician's record suggests and what proposals they present to draw support.
Not at all. The notion of keeping charitable donations silent is scriptural, not anything else. Maybe you are unaware of how many people make public charitable donations.
A political contribution, especially from interest groups or businesses, carries an implicit quid pro quo with it. Especially when it's millions of dollars from an unknown source. Not only that but do we really want foreign governments secretly donating to political candidates?
" Maybe you are unaware of how many people make public charitable donations."
Fully aware, but that's a personal choice, often made for appearance sake. The Scriptural encouragement to do good deeds in private is a direct rebuke of charity for self-promotion.
A political donation is not completely distinct from a charitable one. I contribute...where I've actually done so...to those I though would be good people to have in those positions because of the benefits to whatever population they serve. That is, I can give some money to the needy (which I still do, but roll with me here) and thus they eat a fish, or I can give some to those I think will be good servants of the people, and the result is more people learning how to fish for themselves.
And even with this, there is still and always a quid pro quo. I donate and expect certain actions to be taken, just like the rich dudes who might flood a campaign. I see nothing wrong with that. The problem comes when a politician changes his position and/or plans in order to get the donation. And if we have a list of all donors, how does that allow us to know when and if such a thing happened and who on that list was the guy who succeeded in bribing the politician to do something harmful to us but beneficial to the donor?
This is true of foreign donors as well. The higher up the politician, the more impact on a global scale by his policies. And while I get the concerns, a true bribe can be made and accepted regardless of how the campaign finance rules are set up.
Given what I've said, if you can fill in what I'm missing which subordinates it all to the cause you're promoting, I wouldn't be upset to hear it in the least. As I said, the issue is not at all my forte. I've much to learn.
Which I believe I pointed out. I was unaware that scripture was the basis for campaign finance laws.
While your justification makes some sense for individual donors, it makes less sense when it comes to institutional donors. The fact that you seem to see campaign donations as acceptable quid pro quo, the reality is that your small donation is unlikely to tempt a politician to change their position on something, whereas a donation of millions is more likely to do so.
I'm not sure what you're asking for. Our current election law is what it is, Trump was convicted of various felonies under a misapplication of our current law, Hillary blatantly violated it. If your argument is that changing campaign finance law to be less transparent about who donors are, then it seems incumbent on you to argue why your version is superior.
Now, as pertains the disparity between how Trump and Hillary the Hag was treated as regards campaign finance laws, that's a separate issue. If they both broke the law in relatively the same way, they should face the legal consequences. But the way you describe it, that was not the case. Regardless, I've made my case by questioning why listing donor names is necessary.
To that, I'd also say that as a candidate, if I got tens of thousands from Vladmir Putin, I don't see why his donation should be a concern unless someone can prove I'm doing something I'd never do if not for his money. I'd take every dollar anyone wants to send me, because I want to be able to do what I want to get done...those things I promised in my campaign and which I think are important and beneficial to all constituents.
Said another way, I'd take donations from Dan. If he thinks by donating to me I'm going to support sexual perversion and the fictitious abortion rights, he'll be disappointed. I wouldn't care if people know he donated or not. All that matters is that I'm sticking to my platform. If I don't, no one will care about donations, because the policies I enact are what matter.
And if someone wants to argue that I will not be true to my campaign promises because of who donates how much, it wont' matter. I'll lose.
Post a Comment