I think you misunderstand an appeal to authority. It’s a fallacy when the person making the appeal is not an expert in the matter being discussed. Cite. Not to put too fine a point on it, I’d say my experience in politics is keenly relevant to the discussion at hand.
I’ve read this five times, and I don’t understand the question. Do you mean that you propose that, in addition to all disbursement of contributions being made anonymously, contributors would be forbidden from discussing their donations? Could you clarify?
Well, one of us misunderstands the appeal to authority. I have only your word that you’re an expert in the field, so forgive me if I don’t just instantly concede that since you describe yourself as an authority, that means you are one. Show me your reasoning, don’t just tell me, “I know all about this, so my opinion matters.” If your opinion matters so much, try persuading me of it a little bit.
Now to the substance of your post: my question means exactly what it says. You’re arguing (I think) that a law such as I propose would fail for some mysterious reason. I’m asking you how. If we passed a law regulating campaign contributions as I describe, please tell me how a lobbyist would render it useless. What would lobbyists do, IOW, to get around such a law? You keep claiming it would be easy and inevitable that it would be so. I’m asking for some examples because I don’t think it would be easy or inevitable. I think it would be difficult and dangerous for a lobbyist to try to contribute money directly to a candidate.
I’m not claiming that contributors would be IN ANY WAY restricted from claiming to have contributed, and I don’t see where you get the idea that I am.
I could just donate $53,871.75 through your system to the party, and then tell the party I did so. What are the odds someone else would donate $53,871.75?
Because they wouldn’t get a running account of every single contribution by amount. They would get, say, a bi-weekly report showing the sum of all contributions made during that period. You still want to claim credit for some small percentage thereof? Fine. You’ll be believed if the pol has a lot of faith in you but, if not, then not. You could overststing your contribution, or inventing one, or tellingthe truth. There would be no way for someone to be certain you had contributed the amount you claim.
(shaking head) I’ve gone over that scenario of how lobbyists would skirt the law in three previous posts. Mr Moto has done it again.
You’ve responded each time that the contributors could lie, and I’ve posted at least three times on the strong disincentives for contributors to lie. I’m rather tired of repeating myself.
Then where is the transparancy I stated much earlier would be needed? What incentive would there be for people if they weren’t confident that all of the money would go to their guys?
You’re ignoring our arguments, not the other way around.
Not at all. You keep bringing up this “transparancy” nonsense, when I’ve explained to you that my system doesn’t include transparancy. The idea is that “transprancy” is another term for the corrupt, quid pro quo credit that my idea seeks to do away with. If that’s all you have, your point is noted. Let’s move on from there.
Take an analogy: it’s 1950, and I propose a law banning separate but equal schools, and ask the SDMB why the idea wouldn’t work. Mr. Moto responds “Because that would put Negroes in schools alongside of white kids. Never happen.” Okay, your point is noted. But assuming that it COULD happen, which is what I’m assuming here (understanding that there is an entranched and powerful opposition in place) is there any viable Consitutional (or other) barrier? [BOLD]Mr. Moto[/BOLD] keeps repeating But there’s no transparancy," and [BOLD]Ravenman[/BOLD] keeps assuring me that he knows how government works and, believe him because he knows this so well, it would never, ever, ever work. While crediting both opinions at the true value, I’m asking WHY this wouldn’t work.
Again, I’m asking what you would say, as a lobbyist, to a Senator to get the credit for a contribution outside of my hypothetical agency that doesn’t stand a serious chance of landing you in jail.
I’ll bump this up this once, just to see if anyone --not necessarily limited to Ravenman or Mr. Moto, though they’re welcome to keep trying-- can show me a reason that my hypothetical agency couldn’t be enacted legally.