Letter: True Ethics Reform Requires Real Disclosure
RE: “DAVIS AND SHEHEEN: ETHICS BILL FAILED TO DELIVER“ Dear Editor, When you run for eleYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
RE: “DAVIS AND SHEHEEN: ETHICS BILL FAILED TO DELIVER“ Dear Editor, When you run for eleYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
5 comments
Such a rule would be worthless unless all PACs are also required to disclose their membership contributions. It is of no value to know that John Politician received $50,000 in campaign contributions from ABC PAC, unless you know that virtually all of the money in ABC PAC came from John Briber and affiliates of John Briber, who just happens to be pushing for the passage of legislation that is currently before John Politician’s committee. With that exception I wholeheartedly agree with this post.
Dark money is a cancer eating away at liberty.
Dark money is a cancer eating away at liberty.
Raciss.
The MCCUTCHEON ET AL. v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION concluded aggregate limits are invalid under the First Amendment while preserving base contribution limits. PAC membership contributors and their base contributions they donate for any number of candidates does not rise to a quid quo pro corruption over the candidate or his office. Disclosure of individual contributor’s names opens up the real possibility for retaliation and threats against their protected political speech.
Such nonsense. Paying money to a Super PAC is not protected political speech. Paying money to politicians or to support politicians is not protected political speech. Speech is speech.
Even if it were, who would threaten them? Why do people fear the light? Why do they feel the need to hide the money they are giving to politicians? Because this is nothing more than a way to pay money to politicians in exchange for favors. While it may not be legal quid pro quo, because we cannot prove it, only an idiot thinks a person gives a lot of money to a politician and expects nothing in return. This is de facto quid pro quo, and the only way to stop it is to expose it to light.
Finally if the concern is some people may not want to associate with people because of their political views or may not want to do business with them; There is nothing wrong with that. We have freedom of association in this nation as well. We have the right to associate with whom we please and do business with whom we please. The constitution does not guarantee you
your speech will not cause other people to dislike you
For example whether you agree with the Hobby Lobby decision or not, women who feel strongly on this issue have every right not to shop at Hobby Lobby. That is what freedom of association is not. Your constitutional right to free speech protects you from government action, not from action by individual who disagree with you. Not associating with you is also their way of expressing their protected political speech.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml