SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

Sun Tzu said it best.

"If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it."

Everyone should have the freedom to give a billion dollars to a SuperPAC. Sock it, lebs.

Target learned a hard lesson when they got exposed as supporting a lot of nasty rightwing organizations.

Exposure like that is ruinous for them, as it exposes them as just another bottom line obsessed entity, and they have spent a ton of marketing cash on making themselves seem "nice".

These people took note. They don't like light. They want to glad hand everyone while stabbing them in the back in secret.

Donate millions to a SuperPAC? Anonymity protected.
Sign a petition? Publicly distribute name and address.

DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Exactly. We have a right to free speech, but we also have to take responsibility for that free speech. Freedom of expression with responsibility or accountability is basically 4chan.

Both sides are bad, amiright?

nmrsnr: I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.

The ability to print pamphlets is a tad different from the ability to blanket the public airwaves with propaganda.

I hate my home state for electing this blatant whore so much. If the federal government ever decides to pre-emptively strike Kentucky to re-launch the Civil War, I won't be too torn up about it.

/just keep Louisville intact, guys

Let's not forget that Unions are SuperPACS too.

You have the right to be as crooked or inept as the politicians you oppose, and you have the right to drop tons of money towards the politicians you support. You don't have the right for people not to know about the money, or eventually look into your past and rip you apart, much like the commercials you finance about your rivals.

HMS_Blinkin: DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Exactly. We have a right to free speech, but we also have to take responsibility for that free speech. Freedom of expression with responsibility or accountability is basically 4chan.

Without dammit. Freedom of expression without responsibility or accountability = 4chan.

ferretman: And yet Priorities USA - the group modeled after Crossroads but which supports the president doesn't have too nor do the Dems/Libs want them to.

The Obaam campaign sued crossroads to force it to release its donor list, and any court ruling that forced Crossroads to identify donors would also apply to Priorities. The Obamacampaign wants disclosure, but not unilateral disarmament.

The more you know....

I've lost count - are they quadrupling down, or quintupling down at this point?

Do I mind that millions are spent on political campaigns? Eh, a little.

Do I mind that assholes who fear retaliation for supporting bigots, misogynists, racists and more and want to donate anonymously? Yes. If you ostensibly support someone enough to drop hundreds of thousands, if not millions, into their warchest, you damned well better be identified.

He says he's gotten negative press, received unsavory emails and lost customers.

Oh, so you mean supporting a contemptable piece of human garbage might actually have consequences? Who would have thought??

I assure you that I am playing the tiniest violin right now.

I don't remember if it's the city or the state, but New York instituted a ban on public displays while wearing masks long ago. I think it was to hinder the Klan.

The FCC has required that all sponsoring parties behind a television production be named. The DEA got in trouble for sponsoring "drug message" episodes in the 90's but failing to put their name on the credits.

I don't know how the clowns are calling the shots these days, but the freedom came about in a time of printing presses and street corner speakers. There was room for anonymity from the beginning. But maybe, in political campaign speech, we need to fess up to who is paying for an advertisement. If nothing else, to keep people from screwing with spoilers.

I'm going to refrain for laying out the plan, but anonymous backers for third party (spoiler) candidates for congress could give you a true one party government, and that's what they've been wanting.

vernonFL: I'm not aware of too many things. I know what I know if you know what I mean.

/Mitch McConnell is a black belt douchebag and I hope he gets shell cancer.

that coffee was expensive

nmrsnr: It's only a difference of scale, not of kind.

Not true. Pamphleteering was limited only by the amount of paper that could be pressed. The airwaves are a commodity much more limited, expensive, and exclusive.

SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

I'll take - Things a dictator would say - for $1,000.

Still whining about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.

As soon as the liberal politicians get off the big money teats they've been feeding off of for years and years let me know, until then you're a hypocrite for complaining about Citizens United.

MugzyBrown: SurfaceTension: I think the question nobody is really asking is...why would these people WANT to remain anonymous? What do they have to hide? Why not be proud of the people, issues, and causes you support with your abundance?

I'll take - Things a dictator would say - for $1,000.

lolwut?

nmrsnr: DamnYankees: I'm not aware of any right at all to anonymous speech.

Me neither, but Common Sense and the Federalist Papers were privately funded, anonymously published materials intended to influence the United States political system.

I hate the Citizens United ruling and what it's done to elections in our country, but I can't as of yet figure out why what corporations are trying to do is evil, while not condemning the practices of some of our founders.

"Evil" is perhaps the wrong word. The thing that bothers me is that corporations are fundamentally amoral.

Whatever happened to GOP support for the free market? If I discover that my favorite restaurant is giving donations to lobby for gay marriage rights, then I can vote with my dollars and eat elsewhere. How dare they demand that I unwittingly support things I oppose by allowing these cowardly corporations to hide their speech?

I guess it's time to totally go back to the Gilded Age with campaign finance. No limits, no reporting, money can be taken from anyone, etc. What could possibly go wrong?

nmrsnr: TofuTheAlmighty: The ability to print pamphlets is a tad different from the ability to blanket the public airwaves with propaganda.

It's only a difference of scale, not of kind.

Yep, these same anonymous super PAC donors are just like that guy who said "give me liberty or give me death," but made sure the British never found out who he was. Or maybe those super PAC donors are the same as all those guys who signed the declaration of independence with "x"s because they didn't want King George to know who they were. Or maybe more like that anonymous gentleman who warned the American militia that the British were coming.

It's not about the propaganda, its about the anonymity. These assholes need to have the courage to publicly take responsibility for the things they do in our national public life.

I believe in the right of free speech. I even heavily endorse anonymous free speech.

But we have ALWAYS had limits on material campaign contributions in the modern political era. ALWAYS. Because we know that if people could donate unlimited amounts of money it would make it even easier to buy and sell politicans.

SuperPACs and SuperPAC 501c4 are nothing more than egregious loopholes that allow people to donate unlimited amounts of money to something that is only in the barest sense "technically not" a politician's campaign.

This isn't anonymous free speech. This is vast reserves of dollars that is used to buy TV commercials containing the party's speech, not the individual donor's speech. The commercials don't say "Wal-Mart endorses Mitt Romney." How are the donors "speaking" if all traces of them are scrubbed away, except for the cash?

These loopholes, further push of them, and defense of them by the republican party are terrifying. We're essentially throwing out all campaign finance reform, in a time when wealth disparity is growing.

This isn't about speech, if you support Mitt Romney, make your own damn commercial. But the fact that these wealthy donors and corporations fear being exposed for supporting their "speech" because of public backlash shows how nefarious they even view themselves.

qorkfiend: lolwut?

Let's pretend the sitting president is somebody whose politics I disagree with. Also the president is somebody Nixonian, paranoid, spiteful. I know this is some way out there stuff.

Let's say my company does a lot of business with the government.

Could you now see why I wouldn't want my name linked to being a big advertiser against the sitting president?

Now imagine if the president was a step beyond Nixonian and may be prone to eliminating their rivals.

I prefer to have the powers of government limited so that if somebody who's a real ass gets into power, they can do the least amount of harm.

MugzyBrown: qorkfiend: lolwut?

Let's pretend the sitting president is somebody whose politics I disagree with. Also the president is somebody Nixonian, paranoid, spiteful. I know this is some way out there stuff.

Let's say my company does a lot of business with the government.

Could you now see why I wouldn't want my name linked to being a big advertiser against the sitting president?

Now imagine if the president was a step beyond Nixonian and may be prone to eliminating their rivals.

I prefer to have the powers of government limited so that if somebody who's a real ass gets into power, they can do the least amount of harm.

I've highlighted the actual operative dictatorial part, which isn't public disclosure of campaign donations.

HAMMERTOE: Let's not forget that Unions are SuperPACS too.


So farking what?

qorkfiend: I've highlighted the actual operative dictatorial part, which isn't public disclosure of campaign donations.

How so?

If there was a real bastard in power, would you want your name on a list of donors to the opposition party?

randomjsa: Still whining about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.

As soon as the liberal politicians get off the big money teats they've been feeding off of for years and years let me know, until then you're a hypocrite for complaining about Citizens United.


Hey farktard. They can give all the money they want. I just want to know who's giving it.