Yeah, I think for instance that lobbyists are oppressed by being unable to give whatever sum they wish to Presidential candidates.
There is a meaningful difference between a gay cause, like an AIDS awareness nonprofit, and a gay cause that seeks to influence the vote. Your donation to the former is nobody’s business, the latter most definitely is.
I agree. The problem is if, without the knowledge gleaned from records, those who would be disposed to intimidate won’t know who to target. Take this thread as an example; some have used the records to look up and see that people they know are supporters of Prop 8. Now obviously none of them have threatend to go out and intimidate these folk, but for people who would be interested in doing so they give an example of how such records would be a problem. You can well guess that a gay person will vote against Prop 8 - but when you see the strangers walking into the voting booths, you can’t necessarily pick out the gay ones. Voting or donation records, OTOH, would provide a shopping list for intimidators.
I’m not sure where you’ve got the idea i’m against boycotting from. I’m all for it; it’s an excellent way of making your views known, and of depriving those who have deprived you in turn. I have no problems with the idea of boycotting.
There is a limit of donations being made public. (Did that make sense?) I donated to No on 8 (less than $20, all I had at the time) and did not show up on the lists.
Do you know what the limit is?
So now, instead of Foundation X giving 20.000 bucks, Foundation X circulates a memo, and you get every single member giving a small, anonymous amount under his or her own name. No one can trace it back to Foundation X. Zat cool ?
I would ask people to remember something - typically people tend to get hung up in causes and think tactics like this are completely fair - when they are done by people on their side and for causes they care about. But one man’s boycott is another man’s blacklist - and given half a chance, he’ll either turn it against you or make damn sure you can’t do such a thing in the future.
Backlash in these circumstances is a pretty big risk - there is an ugly gang rape case right now in the Bay Area - the victim was a lesbian who had rainbow and feminist stickers all over her car, and her attackers yelled anti-gay insults at her during the attack. Now, this might not be related to Prop 8 issues, but who knows?
I do know that a few years back when a Virginia newspaper did what you folks are doing and published the names and addresses of every concealed carry permit holder in the state - this ignited a major backlash against the Roanoke Times that eventually made this information unavailable to the public in such a fashion through legislation. Now, do you think some people might seek to shield political donations if they are attacked over them? In the interest of pursuing a short term goal you might lose political transparancy, and that wouldn’t be great.
I have argued on these pages that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was fair (and indeed, they rode out that controversy and have has considerable success since). I have argued that the blacklists of the 1950s went too far but weren’t completely bad (besides, both major parties went in on that one). But if there is violence and vandalism here, people better be wary of unintended consequences.
As I was searching around for the lower limits of public disclosure, I found this article published in the Wall Street Journal and found it interesting. It’s just one more person’s opinion, but it’s expressed well, I think. It’s by “Mr. Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, is the author of “Freedomnomics” (Regnery, 2007). Mr. Smith, a former Federal Election Commission commissioner, is chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and professor of law at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio.”
and
It’s pretty much stating what others have already said here, perhaps just phrased differently.
On preview: a lot of what Mr. Moto just posted. He beat me by a few seconds.
I do not, but apparently there is one.
Except that the issue you raise involves those who have CC permits. And what’s being touched on in this thread is the publication of those who monetarily support a given issue. Prop 8 in this case, but I think it applies to pretty much everything else. What was the end result in the instance you reference? Were people attacked? Paintballs fired at houses? Tires slashed? Frankly, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with what happened in your particular case, but it’s not directly correlative to the issue at hand.
I’m not at all sure I understand this line of thinking. So again, what sort of limit would anyone have imposed? I’ve seen $100 used as a figure, but I still feel that if someone wants to make a contribution to a campaign, whether for President or, as in this case, a Proposition, then they should have the stones to stand up and be counted when it matters. Otherwise, as Kobal2 says, a clever business owner goes around and gets his employees (whether they agree with the Proposition or not, after all, a job is a job in this economic climate) to contribute somewhere under the cutoff to hide his participation.
Again, this references a group trying to obtain something above and beyond donor lists.
Dunno what supporters of gay rights these gentlemen have encountered, but here in the heartland I’ve not encountered many folk who support gay rights who want to hide their participation in same. Quite to the contrary, actually, and I know full well that most of the folk I know who support gay rights are quite open about their sexuality, but even those who are quiet about their sexual orientation at work and amongst family members don’t seem to have an issue with yard signs and the like.
Absent compelling evidence that the person had incited or encouraged or even hinted at the desirability of such illegal activities, I’m gonna say: Nope.
It makes it easier for people to make informed choices wrt their social and financial decisions. I’m not inviting Millie to my Christmas party once I know, nor am I introducing her to people as my friend. I’ll still call the fire department if I see her roof on fire, and the cops, if I suspect that it’s needed. If she’s my Avon rep, I’m getting a new one, and if she runs a cupcake shop down on Main Street, I’ll buy my cupcakes elsewhere.
My concern would be a business that suffers because an employee of that business made a donation.
Now, if Jim McDonald, owner and CEO of McDonald Fabrication, makes a $25,000 donation, I think backlash against McDonald Fabrication is fair.
If Steve Sinclair, drill-press operator for McDonald Fabrication, makes a $500 contribution, I think backlash of any kind against McDonald Fabrication is a serious problem.
I’m not sure why you feel that. Businesses get hit by all sorts of random problems all the time anyway. Power outages, missed shipments, bad checks, sick employees, you name it, it happens. What’s particularly heinous about people altering their behavior towards a business because people they disagree with work there?
Has anything at all like this happened? And frankly, if Jim made the donation, then it doesn’t matter if Steve followed up with his own $500. Now, if Jim worked for an organization that either stayed entirely neutral or worked against Prop 8 (in this instance) and was adversely affected due to his donation, then we’d be getting somewhere. But I’ve not heard of anything similar happening. Have you?
That looks like what happened here (from the Prop. 8 article that I linked to earlier):
If this is indeed an example of what you’ve given in your hypothetical, how would you propose that this be stopped?
Well, that would lead to pressure to fire said individual drill press operator, right? And isn’t that creepily similar to studios firing Hollywood actors and writers for political views or political party membership?
Manager. Employee. See the difference ? If a *waiter *had donated, and that had resulted in a boycott, you’d have a point. She’s the boss.
So… let’s imagine Steve’s gay, and the donation he made was for “No on 8.” And then he’s fired, because his boss is concerned that Steve’s donation could cause conservative groups to boycott his business.
You’re just fine with that outcome too, are you?
Uh - she resigned, according to that link. Meaning she was as much an employee as the waiter, just a higher ranking one.
No, actually I don’t. I don’t see your distinction as a difference.
My understanding was that the difference was between owner and employee. The manager is an employee of the restaurant. She does not own it. She is employed by the restaurant. Whether she’s an employee that is also a manager doesn’t make a difference.
ETA: Gah! Mr. Moto beat me again. I need to type faster!