If anonymous support is your criteria, then LGBT advocacy groups have been subverting democracy for decades.
If it’s high dollar donations, then you can join the right wing in condemning George Soros.
If the anonymous supporters of LGBT advocacy groups turn out to be corporations funneling large donations into the group in order to lobby for greater profitability, then fuck me, you got me there.
Indeed, I think I just stipulated to that. Assuming that Soros is contributing big money to LGBT rights groups so he can profit as a result, then he’s as bad as corporations.
Basically, it seems that campaign reform is something we should all consider.
Yeah but what does that look like?
It seems cut and dry when you point out a fast food company and the NRA but on the other side are the groups that push for things like… making sure everyone has a right to vote, making sure the member of the LGBQTA+ group aren’t discriminated against, trying to get internet access to low and there for unprofitable areas. The fact that people come together to allow small groups of people to push a few coherent messages for millions instead of millions, or hundreds/whatever the number, rambling incoherently about the same thing, sort of, doesn’t mean it suddenly doesn’t come from voters or people.
I’m all for transparency, but as long we allow private donations, I don’t see how you can say this group can have a voice but not this one because I don’t agree with them. Let people peacefully boycott if they want. That’s part of our process.
Well, it’s one thing to say they can pool their money to advocate for rights, etc. It’s another to say they can pool their money to make campaign contributions so they can buy influence.
Today Money = Influence. If we get big money out of campaigns and PACs, and out of candidates’ pockets, then the organizations and lobbying falls back into it’s intended place.
Get rid of it. No private donations, have it all paid out by the state and federal level.
Set up strict requirements that you need x number of signatures to make it on the ballet, and then you get access to the pie during election season.
As a plus, if you only allow people to access to it only after September, we’ve also shortened the election season from all year round to a few months! Win/win!
I don’t know about you, but I am winning to pay slightly more in taxes if it means fewer adds during the year!
Edit:. Didn’t Freakonomics show they the impact of money on elections themselves were rather limited, and that candidates with a higher chance of winning simple attracted more donations, not the other way around.
Whether they want to or not, agree with their positions or not. Democracy at it’s best.
This seems ideal on the surface but what would prevent millionaires, billionaires or anyone with money from just running private ads on whatever platform they want? The ability to pool resources, on paper, helps those with limited resources have a voice too.
I don’t see how you can prevent that with our freedom of speech laws. Nothing stops me from buying three billboards and putting whatever message I want on it, except the money.
That kind of spending counts as a campaign contribution even now. If campaign contributions were illegal, this would be illegal too.
Are you sure? I thought that little blurb at the end where so and so approves this message was created because outside groups were doing their own messages and it wasn’t clear if it was part of a campaign or not.
You realize that it’s the SAME THING! It’s both using money to get influence to achieve their objective!
Well, Cohen is maybe in trouble for spending private money on behalf of getting Trump elected, since private money spent to get someone elected has to be reported as a campaign contribution,
I realize that the CAPITAL LETTERS are not convincing. Giving money to politicians so they have to grant you access later is not the same as e.g. running ads promoting civil rights for minorities. It’s a different thing even if you say it is the SAME THING! really loudly.
Scott I understand your sentiment but the group that would discriminate again the LGBTQA+ would claim they are promoting their religious rights. You can’t just pick and choose the arguments you agree with and believe. It’s the same thing whether you support it or not.
I’m not choosing arguments, I’m differentiating uses of money. It is the giving of corporate money to politicians to buy influence which is corrupting. If the NRA wants to collect money from members to run ad campaigns championing the 2nd amendment, I have no complaints. When they want to collect money from gun manufacturing companies to use it to buy Congressmen, that seems a bit much to me.
You keep referring to corporation as if they are this undefined blob. If someone wants to create a new company to create renewable energy and send a representative to go talk to to their, well representative, why can’t they?
The other problem is, the non-binary sexual group is tiny. Even if they pooled all their money together, and that’s not going to be a lot, who is going to speak for them? Who speaks for the minority when the majority won’t?
This doesn’t work, because certain people have control of things like media outlets and this will end up having oversized influence in elections.
You can’t stop people from saying stuff they want, and paying money to get those messages into the public arena. You need to stop trying. You are, ultimately, fighting against the 1st amendment, and doing so is a bad road to travel down.
I don’t know why they can’t meet. What they shouldn’t be able to do is give thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates or parties for the purposes of gaining influence over the resulting elected officials. That’s corruption. I know it’s legal, I’m saying it ought not to be.
Time is money, so you have to “buy” your time with your elected representative. That is the American Way.
I would rather a company donated to both sides, as it shows a lack of actual commitment to either. In essence a company should do what is best for itself and it’s employees.