In Ireland, political belief is protected from discrimination to the same degree as race or gender - does America have the same protection?
Because if it does (and I assume it does, I can’t imagine a first world country without it), and the boycotts are aimed at getting people fired, or creating a constructive dismissal situation, where a person has no option but to quit, due to the damage to the company, should the person discriminated against not be able to sue the organisers of the boycott?
If some white-power group was doing the same thing to a business that employed a black person who donated to Obama, i would assume the person could sue the organisers for effectively forcing them out.
So your position is that we shouldn’t make donation records public because they make it a tiny little bit easier for extraordinarily lazy criminals to find people to harrass in a criminal way?
Ms. Brienza will, in the future, structure her donations to stay under federal reporting limits. This seems reasonable, and should be instituted by state governments to ensure maximum citizen participation in government while providing a balance between openness and privacy.
Large donations to a single campaign will be reported. Small ones will not be.
But the caps aren’t new, are they? And everyone on the Prop 8 list made donations larger than the cap, right? So perhaps I’m being dense or missed something (entirely possible, I’m skimming a bit), but I don’s see how her story is especially relevant.
This is a good point. One of the big problems I have with these organizations circulating a list of names is that people could end up being targeted on completely false grounds.
How would you like it if someone who just plain didn’t like you inserted your name, phone number, workplace and home address on a list of anti-gay donors and then sent that list to everyone on the SDMB to try to get people to cause trouble for you?
But again, someone who just plain doesn’t like you and wants to make trouble for you will find some way to do it. Transparency in political donations is well worth making it infinitesimally easier for some asshole to make your life difficult.
I do, and although I think that the names of the larger contributors should be available, I am concerned that some dudes in the “No on 8” crowd will also take things too far.
Try to keep up honey. There is currently no right to privacy for donations over a certain amount. If you want to keep your donation private, keep it under that amount. Easy peasy.
No, they wouldn’t. Our constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, and to freedom of association. You can’t force someone to patronize a business that employs black people, and you can’t force them not to talk about why people shouldn’t patronize a business that employs black people. They might be able to sue their employer for caving to the boycott, but I’m unsure if that would work. The employer might be able to protect himself by pointing out that he fired the employee not because of his race, but because the employee was costing his company money.
Please. When I use a word like “contemptible” I am not engaging in a legal analysis of the issue. I mean it’s a tactic worthy of contempt. Plenty of contemptible things are perfectly legal.
Exactly, and Cheesesteak pretty much nailed the difference between the two on the previous page.
I guess, for what it’s worth, i can claim some of the consistency that Bricker appears to be seeking. I didn’t think the Yes on 8 people’s tactic were that problematic either. Yes, the intent behind their actions was pretty clearly a type of extortion or blackmail, but i can’t get too worked up when someone threatens to reveal details that are not only on public record, but are posted on a website for the whole world to see.
Well fair enough… that phrase deserves some clarification. But only some.
In both cases, advocates for a cause sought to use the fact of a campaign contribution to the opposing side of the cause to achieve some result. The “Yes on 8” crowd evidently sought to have the contributor expiate his sin, so to speak, and conveniently the way to do that was to contribute money in equal amounts to the “Yes on 8” crowd.
The “No on 8” crowd seeks to create negative consequences for the contributor as an effort to dissuade others from future support.
Neither of those strike me as noble. I agree they are not precisely the same tactic, so for those who crave accuracy, it’s indeed not completely correct to call one a “reverse tactic” of the other.
Not to the exact same extent, but many states and the federal government do has statutes to protect against discrimination on the basis of political ideology if the government is doing the acting.
Why? An individual boycott (i/e not governmentally run) is a form of free speech. The government has no power to force people to shop at a particular store, to support a business, or to associate with certain people.
But if the boycott rises to the level of illegal harrassment (or possible interference with contract, but that’s not likely to survive), there can be action.
You’re adding racial discrimination to the mix, not just political discrimination. Get rid of the racial aspect, and no, the person likely could not sue the people boycotting a restaurant for hiring a Democrat.
Would you also take away a person’s right to boycott the people who are boycotting the business too?
I think the distinction is greater than you’re making it out to be.
If I give money to Prop 8, then I’m a supporter. If I refuse to give money to the Prop 8 campaign, that doesn’t mean I support the opposite side. You won’t find me on the current donor list of any campaign that was fighting Prop 8, but anyone who claims that that makes me somehow a Prop 8 supporter is full of shit. I’m going to assume you haven’t made any donations to the Patriot Guard Riders (I haven’t either at this time). Does that make you a supporter of Fred Phelps?
You can say it’s not “precisely” the same tactic, but they’re not even in the same league.
Heck, intent has always been a crucial element. If the intent is personal enrichment (by getting the person to pay you not to publish his name), that’s somewhat distinct from seeking political change (by publishing the names regardless).
I just figure everyone’s gonna have to suck it up. If there is vandalism or assault, prosecute the perps, but just stop whining about it.
I don’t think you are going to convince anyone that a point of difference that makes A an act of extortion and B an act of namecalling is a trivial technical pettifog.