We had a similar initiative here if FL that also passed. :mad: Locally, I kept a list of all the businesses that had “yes on 2” sign in their window and e-mailed it around to all my friends urging them not to do business with them. When someone brings their politics into the workplace they get to reap what they sow, and that is HOW society moves forward. If you don’t want it affecting your financial life then keep the sign out of the window, and your money in your wallet and use your vote like every other american citizen can.
Not the same thing. In voting, you, an individual citizen, are giving your one voice and opinion on a particular issue.
In donating for a campaign, you are trying to sway other voters into doing the same and actively pushing your agenda beyond the “call of duty”. That makes you a public actor in the public dialog, and an active player in the campaign itself. Since political campaigns are as transparent as possible (and as well they should be), we can see you.
Because the donation is not a vote. Per SCOTUS, it’s speech. You have a right, guaranteed protected by the Constitution, to express your views through speech. To secretively hire someone to express your views to the world? Not so much.
Are we still saying “not so much”? I get distracted sometimes, and don’t notice when things change…
And while we’re at it, while you have the right to free speech, and can publicly say anything you damn well please, I also have the right to call you a tool if your speech seems toolish to me. I can’t shut you up, but I can react to what you say however I see fit. If my calling you a tool takes the form of boycott and any other action allowed by the law, well, tough shit. Free speech doesn’t mean free respect.
If they can’t handle people reacting to what they say, let them shut the fuck up.
Oh, and I forgot to add : the vote, BTW, is not made secret to protect you from your peers and their opinions of you. It’s secret to protect you from the State. It’s secret so no one can refuse, misplace or discount your vote based on which bulletin you chose. It’s secret so you cannot be intimidated by whoever monitors the voting. It’s secret so that the ballot is harder to tamper with. In short, it’s secret to ensure that your voice is heard. Not to disguise it, put it in someone else’s mouth nor enshroud you in darkness.
A donation isn’t a vote, very far from it. The idea of voting is that everybody has the exact same pull in the voting booth - one man, one vote, level playing field.
But when the John Templetons of this world drop $450K on a campaign, they use their financial resources to move a vote in their preferred direction. If the average contributor drops a “vote” (your description) worth $100 in the plate, John Templeton suddenly gets to put in 4500 ballots? That hardly seems fair.
So no, donations aren’t votes. Donations are used to sway other people’s votes. John Templeton is in effect hiring somebody else to go out to sway public opinion his way. I have no problem with that information being public, and yes, we have donated to political causes.
In voting booth, your lever pull has the exact same weight as the richest, most powerful political opponent you can imagine. In the donations game, it’s not quite as balanced, is it?
Prop 8 is unusual in that it’s not directly linked to opportunities for income, but the same is not true for other propositions.
If a proposition to ease up on the rules for eminent domain is put to the vote, I think it’s highly relevant to see if it’s backed by $500K donations from peoperty developers with direct interest in the outcome, don’t you?
Has anyone mentioned that a donation is not a vote yet?
This. I checked out the eightmaps site, and was horrified that a guy down here donated $25,000. Wow. I will never knowingly be doing any business with Comarco, Inc. and Mr. Winston Hickman. That goes double (pun intended) for Peter Ochs and his Fieldstone Corporation ($50,000).
Gah.
Edit- in my part of Orange County, there seems to be a lot of donations from public school teachers… 
And only in Newport Beach can a “homemaker” donate $10,000 to Prop. 8! :rolleyes:
A few times I think. A few more times magellan01 might acknowledge it. More then likely he’ll just slide into another argument to prove his side is right.
Everything she writes is suspect because she has an open agenda and promotes it for a living. She is not an objective source in any way, and even her fans would probably agree to that.
If you want to persuade people of the truth of your position, offering evidence from openly biased sources is not the way to do it. I don’t think that’s a radical view to take, nor one you’re unfamiliar with. If your information is verifiable and true, one would think it has reported by a reputable news source. The San Francisco Chronicle, the LA Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, the Sacramento Bee… surely one or more of these newspapers has some cites you could offer? If not, why not, if what you’re alleging is true? If you have to resort to cites from protectmarriage.com and Michelle Malkin, then that indicates to even the casual observer that you couldn’t find anything from a real news outlet, and severely undermines your credibility in the debate.
That said, if you really have a legitimate point, I have no doubt you will provide a credible cite for it presently. Should be easy. Then we can resume the conversation about your point.
And yet another “homemaker” in NB comes in at $25,000! :eek:
We’ll stop saying it when he starts understanding it.
I never said they accomplish nothing. As for the bus boycott that only worked because:
- It was a localized issue
- The boycotters were the primary customers
And so much for the right’s cry for political transparency. I guess that only applies to Obama’s campaign donors?
I notice a lot of large donations coming in from attorneys. I’m wondering if any of them thought that by passing Prop 8 they might actually get more work defending same sex couples who were married before the measure passed?
I’ve been wondering why lawyers aren’t coming out full-force in favor of gay marriage. Let’s face it, people can get married in half an hour for $25. The real money is in divorce, and always has been. More marriage = more lucrative divorces.
OK, I’ll read the entire thread next time. Grumble. <hangs head in shame>
Nah, you may rest assured that there will be someone else willing to spread this bit of ignorance around. So it’ll have to be said again.
There is voting and there is donating. Two different things. We agree. We’ve decided to make one private, and not the other. I’m revisiting that decision. I’m saying that donating, at least at some minor level, should be treated like voting, in respect to privacy. Why? I don’t think people should be intimidated into silence. This would be especially unfortunate for someone holding a minority opinion.
As I’ve said, I think that donations can rise to a point where the person is bringing extraordinary influence to bear. If he, or she does, then I can see shedding light on the person as a significant player.
But legal or not, I think it very problematic that a group would package and disseminate info like that in the map linked. Kind of reeks of “where do the Jews live”.
Here’s a question for you and others: if it was shown that a percentage of people on a local map, say 35%, were victims of vandalism or threats, to the exclusion of their neighbors whose names were not on the list, should the person who packaged and disseminated the information be held responsible in any way?
And as I’ve asked earlier: What is the purpose of info like the linked map? If it’s not to provide a list of people to be harassed, then why. What is the advantage of knowing Millie Jones donated $25.00 to Proposition XX?
This I agree with completely. Once people make their opinions public, they’re fair game.