A question for all those arguing the other side: Im curious as to how many of you think that a workplace vote to form a union should be secret ballot?
What ignorance are you referring to? Please be specific.
We need to be able to follow the money. If a rich real-estate developer wants to spend $100 million telling us the Spotted Owl isn’t in danger so he can bulldoze a forest we absolutely need to know where the money is coming from, in order to be informed voters.
A. Donation. Is. Not. A. Vote.
Voting is secret. I’m fine with that. Fundraising is not secret. I’m fine with that too.
Let me ask you this: if donations could be made in secret without any oversight whatsoever, would you be okay with the idea that (hypothetically) the Chinese could fund the U.S. Republican Party with communist-supplied dollars? Would you be okay with the idea if (again, hypothetically) Barack Obama’s campaign was financed by [insert liberal celebrity here]?
I’ve made allowance for that. I said that there should be a limit that once passed, the person has voluntarily become a major player and his involvement should be divulged.
Can you please read—even just the previous five posts— and repost. Thanks.
Meet some little old ladies who kick ass.
Note that it was started shortly after the repression began. One of the advantages of being old, is that no matter how badly you get beaten, the person who beats you up, looks the worse for it, than you do. Not that being old means being helpless.
And you’re wrong.
A donation. Is not. A vote.
It should not be necessary for me to say this, but I completely and categorically refute the attacks and violence against Prop 8 donators. I also like nice things such as puppies and rainbows and sunshine and I hate icky things like violence and mean people.
If somebody is breaking the law — assault, vandalism, or whatever — then fucking enforce those laws. Don’t enshroud the fundraising in secrecy, and then pretend to salute the flag, as if it’s all about democracy and the good ol’ U.S.A.
People can also — oh my gosh! — they can also use the PHONE BOOK to harass and assault people. They can also use the POST OFFICE and the TELEPHONE. We should make those illegal too?
No. We should enforce the laws of violence. There’s no need to change the laws about political donation for reasons already expressed.
:rolleyes: Then you’re wrong as well. I’ve said the same thing: they are two different things. You even quoted me.
Well, you’re against violence, good for you. We agree there, too. Now here’s a question: Based on what you have written here, can I assume that you’d be fine with a redneck town, say, in inland Florida, that had very few gays, publishing a map of the handful of people that donated to a gay cause? My position would be that while there are laws in place that you mention, I’d prefer to try to prevent the violence before it happened. I’m sure a victim that might after months or years get reimbursed for repainting his house or getting a set of new teeth would probably prefer to not have gone through the ordeal. No?
If we’re talking about donations to a PAC then certainly. I would prefer that they didn’t, but donations of that type are public record. If you don’t want people knowing then you don’t donate in that manner.
The problem is that, unless you have access to a PK Dick-esque Pre-Crimes Division, you cannot prevent crimes before they happen. You most definitely should not be allowed to change campaign finance law to do so, especially when you haven’t proven that the crimes will be or have been committed. People are aware that the law states that donors to political campaigns will have their names on a publicly accessible list. If you don’t want to be on that list, then you have access to a secret, private way to make your opinion known: the vote.
magellan01, why are you so bent on covering these cowards up? Do you dispute it was a very wrong thing they did? Don’t you think people should stand by their actions?
No they’re not at major risk for violence. However the fruits of their villainy is very real damage to lives of many gay people.
It’s a small scared little person who’d harm another then try to hide it from the world. As these dark age wanne be losers have done. It’s spineless. “Oh no teh gays will boycott me :(:(!! omgwtfbbq”. Well you stupid little bigots you should have thought about that before using money from your business to fund their oppression.
I don’t do business with bigots of this caliber, and I’d like to know who I’m dealing with. They’re no better then Klansman trying to hide their head in some stupid white pillow case.
If these people are afraid of the gays, maybe they shouldn’t deliberately antagonize them like they have.
Having done so, it certainly isn’t the job of the state to provide cover for them beyond standard law enforcement.
So, in addition to the laws that currently exist that specifically target those who harass or intimidate others, you want to create a new law that allows people to donate in secrecy up to a certain level? Who gets to decide what that level is? And why that particular level? And why that particular individual/organization? Hell, this could go on ad infinitum.
As soon as a vote and a campaign contribution are in any way analagous, I promise to answer your question. But they’re not.
Your ignorance. The ignorance that is yours. The ignorance manifested in your ignorant belief that a vote is at all like a campaign contribution and should be accorded the same secrecy that is attached to a vote. That ignorance.
I know it’s been said, more than a time or two as I recall, but a vote and a campaign contribution are in no way similar, nor should they be. You wanna contribute to a cause? More power to you. But you don’t get to pule and whine about the unfairness of having that donation made public. Especially not in the half-assed, “It’s unfair to small business owners,” fashion that you’ve attempted in this thread. Or have you discovered new ways to split a hair and are moving on to those now?
I took the liberty of putting the word “silence” in italics, because I think it highlights where I’m coming from. Making a donation is akin to* speaking up* - it is, in effect, hiring someone else to make a public effort to sway opinion your way.
I guess we agree that you can’t literally stump for a point of view and at the same time insist on doing so anonymously - that’d be absurd. I don’t see why you’d have a right to anonymity just because you’re hiring someone to speak on your behalf. Which, in my mind, is what you’re doing when you donate.
For these guys to get cold feet after the fact and insist that the rules be changed for them specifically, that’s just pathetic.
magellan, I opened up this reply box entirely prepared to disagree with you on this. But as I was marshalling my arguments I kept shooting them down myself.
The general reasoning behind a secret ballot is that no-one can be bullied into changing their minds, either before or after the vote. Social pressure can be allieved, to the extent that it can be, by allowing a person to vote for the person or issues they want without fear of people discovering this and causing problems for them in some capacity. My argument was going to be that donating money differs from voting in that it is an act rather than an opinion, and that an act that curtails the rights of homosexuals is as much if not more of an imposition as paint thrown at houses, threatening calls made, physical violence attempted. But I realised that voting isn’t an opinion; it too is an act, based upon opinions, and so should fall under the same reasoning, as least as far as this particular issue goes. I find I can’t seperate the two in any way that holds integrity for me, other than the issue you and others have brought up of the amount of money/significance of effect.
I too believe I have no opinions that I would want kept private. I am happy to stand by them all in public. I’d like to think that was true for all the nasty things that could happen, but I think, given a threat of physical violence, i’m coward enough to keep mum on some issues. And that’s the problem. Cases in which those who support keeping particular rights away from gays aren’t specifically addressed; those ideas which keep vandalism and violence away from anti-gay people also keep it away from pro-gay people, and in this particular instance the anti-gay crowd seem to be somewhat in the majority. So I think i’m with you on this particular one. But, please, no more “so much for the lefty tolerance” posts, please - if not for me then for your position. 
So a small business owner donates a good portion of his profit to Prop 8, which denies the right to marriage to so much of his customer base that when they boycott, he can’t sustain his business any more.
And we’re supposed to feel sorry for this dumbshit?
Well, a gay “cause” could just be an AIDS non-profit food bank, and that should be anonymous if a person wishes, but I’d prefer to live in a country where the citizens of redneck town can spend their money how they choose without fear of criminals dictating how they vote or spend their money. I do not want to live in a country where I have to hide what I am, or what I do, lest vigilante gangs beat me up.
What’s the limit?
Personally, I think there’s a case for anonymous $50 contributions, not as a matter of human rights so much (sheesh!), but because of the smallness of the individual effect.
But those who seek to influence public discussion in a non-trivial way anonymously are another matter. If somebody plonks a cool $25,000 down for radio advertisements, that’s something different than conveying your opinion in a one-man-one-vote sort of manner. Disproportionate influence shouldn’t be exercised from behind a cloak of anonymity.
I’d set the limit in the $100-$500 range: currently at a federal level it’s $200 IIRC which seems about right.
At any rate, the lawsuit is a joke, since California law apparently set the limit at a lower level. I think it is $100 for campaigns, but maybe a different level applies to initiatives. http://disclosure.law.ucla.edu/
A secret ballot is no guarantee that there won’t be voter intimidation. Witness recent elections where certain groups were targetted, either with threats or misleading information. You might not know that a specific individual voted for (or against) a particular issue or candidate, but you can damn well figure out which group is going to vote more heavily in one particular direction and then target members of that group for boycotts or harassment (or worse).
Its a safe bet that gays are going to vote against Prop 8 issues, and you can threaten and intimidate them so they don’t show up at the polls. The same is true with African-Americans and Democratic candidates.
Boycotting businesses that gave money in support of Prop 8 is no different than groups like “Focus on the Family” calling for boycotts on corporations that give “life partner” benefits to their employees. Actually, Focus on the Family is worse because they’re going after a company which is exercising their rights under the law. These corporations are not (necessarily) seeking to have existing laws changed (though many of them did support efforts to block Prop 8).
If Prop 8 had been shot down, do you think that folks like Focus on the Family wouldn’t have gone after companies like Apple which donated large sums of money to those fighting against it? If so, you’re seriously deluding yourself.