Article V of the Constitution & a Constitutional Convention

[BlueK]

As usual, PAC states it much better than I do.

The Caucusus. LOL. I would love for Facebook and twitter to do the socially responsible thing and slap a big red RUSSKIES label around any messaging that originates from Russia, making sure it can't be taken off when Crazy Uncle Jed from Panguitch re-sends it out to everyone on his friends list. i think eventually market forces will push social media outlets into something like this. I'm all for letting even the Russkies have their free speech here, but the audience also I think has the right to know where the fake news is coming from.

[cowboy]

This is an interesting issue but I'm not sure I like your argument here. I see a major distinction between expressing one's view, in the privacy of the voting booth, on the one hand, and trying to influence the vote of others with a megaphone, whether literal or figurative. When someone advocates for a particular position, I examine the merits of the argument but I'd still like to know what that person's motivations are. If the financial support for a local measure is coming from out-of-state or from the Caucasus, I want to know. I'm okay with keeping small donations private, but once a financial megaphone becomes too large to tune out, I want to know who's on the other side of it.

Fair point, but how is the fear of retribution for supporting a measure financially much different than fear of supporting it in the booth? Take a southern state and an abortion issue, for example. Obviously, there will be a great deal of money from southern businesses large and small flowing into any measure that involves abortion in the south. Should pro choice voters be afraid for their jobs because they want to counter that funding by donating to help defeat a bill that curtails abortions? I think not, but that is exactly what is happening. I don't mind corporate or group donations being made public, but I feel strongly that tracking those donations to individual voters is unfair, and poses dangers to our republic.

[wuapinmon]

You go wuap!

El Quijote no era el loco.

[Walter Sobchak]

The Caucusus. LOL. I would love for Facebook and twitter to do the socially responsible thing and slap a big red RUSSKIES label around any messaging that originates from Russia, making sure it can't be taken off when Crazy Uncle Jed from Panguitch re-sends it out to everyone on his friends list. i think eventually market forces will push social media outlets into something like this. I'm all for letting even the Russkies have their free speech here, but the audience also I think has the right to know where the fake news is coming from.

Not paranoid at all. Nope.

[Commando]

Not paranoid at all. Nope.

Are you saying there aren't any memes, groups, or messaging from Russia on fb?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Fair point, but how is the fear of retribution for supporting a measure financially much different than fear of supporting it in the booth? Take a southern state and an abortion issue, for example. Obviously, there will be a great deal of money from southern businesses large and small flowing into any measure that involves abortion in the south. Should pro choice voters be afraid for their jobs because they want to counter that funding by donating to help defeat a bill that curtails abortions? I think not, but that is exactly what is happening. I don't mind corporate or group donations being made public, but I feel strongly that tracking those donations to individual voters is unfair, and poses dangers to our republic.

It's an interesting tradeoff, and I'm fine with keeping individual donations below, say, $500 off the books. But kicking in substantially larger sums seems like the equivalent of stepping out of the voting booth where one's vote is (and should remain) private and shouting to everyone how you voted--go ahead and express yourself but I want to know who's doing the shouting. I see the downside of such disclosure but accept it (easy for me to say, I suppose) in favor of better transparency...

Not paranoid at all. Nope.

Sometimes paranoia is simply a state of heightened awareness...

[And finally, responding to no one...] On this same general topic, I'm interested in the arguments over the Johnson Amendment (which makes it a condition of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status that the charity not advocate for individual candidates) which evangelical denominations hate. My sense is that Trump was told they'd love it if he called for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, so he did and hence the evangelicals are happy to give him mulligans for Stormy Daniels and dozens of other transgressions, any of which would get most us commoners ex'd. If the Amendment were repealed, it would mean a big cash inflow for evangelical churches since the donors could support their favorite candidates while their identity remains hidden (btw, cowboy, I wouldn't advocate for the publication of 501(c)(3) donors but would be tempted to reconsider if the Johnson Amendment were repealed).

Anyway, a tip of the cap to Trump for making the politically shrewd move by calling for its repeal, at least as far as his base is concerned, although I suspect he thought the Johnson Amendment had something to do with penile enlargement.

[cowboy]

It's an interesting tradeoff, and I'm fine with keeping individual donations below, say, $500 off the books. But kicking in substantially larger sums seems like the equivalent of stepping out of the voting booth where one's vote is (and should remain) private and shouting to everyone how you voted--go ahead and express yourself but I want to know who's doing the shouting. I see the downside of such disclosure but accept it (easy for me to say, I suppose) in favor of better transparency...

Honestly, I'm surprised you see things this way. Suppose the CEO of a Wyoming hospital is vehemently opposed to handguns because his daughter was murdered by her ex-husband. A gun control measure comes on the ballot in Wyoming and he knows the NRA is going to pump millions into advertising to defeat it, and he is willing to spend $20,000 of his own money in an attempt to offset their efforts, but doing so publicly will cost him his job. In fact most people who donate to defeat this measure will pay a price either socially or professionally. Now, you're telling me you 1) don't think public disclosure is de facto form of suppression, and 2) you think that people should be willing to pay with their careers if they want to fight big money, be it George Soros or the NRA, on the other side of an issue?

[old_gregg]

Honestly, I'm surprised you see things this way. Suppose the CEO of a Wyoming hospital is vehemently opposed to handguns because his daughter was murdered by her ex-husband. A gun control measure comes on the ballot in Wyoming and he knows the NRA is going to pump millions into advertising to defeat it, and he is willing to spend $20,000 of his own money in an attempt to offset their efforts, but doing so publicly will cost him his job. In fact most people who donate to defeat this measure will pay a price either socially or professionally. Now, you're telling me you 1) don't think public disclosure is de facto form of suppression, and 2) you think that people should be willing to pay with their careers if they want to fight big money, be it George Soros or the NRA, on the other side of an issue?

if you can’t live with or defend the positions motivating your vote you have no business voting

[PaloAltoCougar]

Honestly, I'm surprised you see things this way. Suppose the CEO of a Wyoming hospital is vehemently opposed to handguns because his daughter was murdered by her ex-husband. A gun control measure comes on the ballot in Wyoming and he knows the NRA is going to pump millions into advertising to defeat it, and he is willing to spend $20,000 of his own money in an attempt to offset their efforts, but doing so publicly will cost him his job. In fact most people who donate to defeat this measure will pay a price either socially or professionally. Now, you're telling me you 1) don't think public disclosure is de facto form of suppression, and 2) you think that people should be willing to pay with their careers if they want to fight big money, be it George Soros or the NRA, on the other side of an issue?

Don't worry, I haven't become a lefty or, worse, a Vegan. But are we arguing over degree or absolutes here? Should Soros and the Koch brothers be permitted to hide their political spending along with the rest of us? Other than modest amounts, I still favor disclosure of significant contributions, with some room for movement on the meaning of significant.

Of course, the hypothetical you raise hit close to home here in California where one or more LDS businessmen got canned when their (significant) donations to Prop. 8 were revealed. I can see why you (and many others) were very troubled by that, but I thought it was within bounds of what I'm willing to accept as the price of open political discourse, tainted though it was by zealots in that instance.

[BlueK]

Are you saying there aren't any memes, groups, or messaging from Russia on fb?

Irony. A Pat "Help! We're being invaded by aliens!" Buchanon disciple calling someone paranoid.

[Scott R Nelson]

if you can’t live with or defend the positions motivating your vote you have no business voting

Assuming this is still about making larger donations and having your name be known...

Back in the days of the California Proposition 8 - California Marriage Protection Act - a widow in our ward wanted to do her part, so she donated $10,000 to the cause. Apparently she couldn't do that anonymously, so she ended up receiving all kinds of threatening phone calls and similar abuse. The people on the other side of that measure seemed to like to play dirty when they could (not everyone in favor was completely clean either).

Should everybody who feels strongly enough about an issue to put up some money to support it have to deal with months of abuse? That sounds like what you're favoring.

[Walter Sobchak]

Are you saying there aren't any memes, groups, or messaging from Russia on fb?

I'm also not saying there aren't beverages and other food out there that is made with fluoridated water. The socially responsible thing to do is slap a big red FLUORIDATED label on it so we can protect our precious bodily fluids.

[All-American]

if you can’t live with or defend the positions motivating your vote you have no business voting

I can't agree with this. There is a world of difference between somebody exercising their sovereignty and casting a vote versus trying to influence the way someone else exercises there's.

[old_gregg]

I can't agree with this. There is a world of difference between somebody exercising their sovereignty and casting a vote versus trying to influence the way someone else exercises there's.

agree that they are very different, and the proposition that campaign donations should be both functionally limitless and confidential is very scary. but if a voter can’t articulate a clear reason why they voted the way they did, they should be shamed.

[creekster]

agree that they are very different, and the proposition that campaign donations should be both functionally limitless and confidential is very scary. but if a voter can’t articulate a clear reason why they voted the way they did, they should be shamed.

What does that even have to do with the discussion? Did anyone here extol the opposite?

[cowboy]

if you can’t live with or defend the positions motivating your vote you have no business voting

Then why have a secret ballot at all? Living with one's own conscience is one thing, but being punished or publicly shamed for voting or supporting a position is contrary to the fundamental tenets of democracy.

Don't worry, I haven't become a lefty or, worse, a Vegan. But are we arguing over degree or absolutes here? Should Soros and the Koch brothers be permitted to hide their political spending along with the rest of us? Other than modest amounts, I still favor disclosure of significant contributions, with some room for movement on the meaning of significant.

Of course, the hypothetical you raise hit close to home here in California where one or more LDS businessmen got canned when their (significant) donations to Prop. 8 were revealed. I can see why you (and many others) were very troubled by that, but I thought it was within bounds of what I'm willing to accept as the price of open political discourse, tainted though it was by zealots in that instance.

We're arguing degrees. But do you really think it's acceptable for someone to lose their job for supporting a ballot measure? I don't think that's acceptable at all. Further, the hypocrisy of it all is astounding. Imagine the outrage if a professor were fired for donating to pro-life organizations. The left loves to label Trump a fascist, but there are few things more fascist than trying to sway a vote through intimidation like the left did with Prop 8. When it comes to the democratic process, the ends do not justify the means.

Following this to it's logical conclusion, the result will be that big money will have more influence because only those who can afford to support their opinion without worrying for their livelihood will spend money on a campaign. I don't think any of us want to see even more influence given to Soros and the Koch brothers. I can see privacy being limited to a certain dollar amount, but with the cost of elections and ad campaigns, I think that threshold should be in the high 6 digits.

[old_gregg]

being punished or publicly shamed for voting or supporting a position is contrary to the fundamental tenets of democracy.

strongly disagree. without open discourse by people regarding motive and rationale, there is no democracy.

[falafel]

Assuming this is still about making larger donations and having your name be known...

Back in the days of the California Proposition 8 - California Marriage Protection Act - a widow in our ward wanted to do her part, so she donated $10,000 to the cause. Apparently she couldn't do that anonymously, so she ended up receiving all kinds of threatening phone calls and similar abuse. The people on the other side of that measure seemed to like to play dirty when they could (not everyone in favor was completely clean either).

Should everybody who feels strongly enough about an issue to put up some money to support it have to deal with months of abuse? That sounds like what you're favoring.

This goes both ways. If you had a guy in your organization who openly supported a group who advocated for sharia law in the U.S., including the near complete restriction of women's rights, wouldn't you want the public to be able to exert pressure on that guy? Months of abuse seems like too little for a person like that.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...

We're arguing degrees. But do you really think it's acceptable for someone to lose their job for supporting a ballot measure? I don't think that's acceptable at all. Further, the hypocrisy of it all is astounding. Imagine the outrage if a professor were fired for donating to pro-life organizations. The left loves to label Trump a fascist, but there are few things more fascist than trying to sway a vote through intimidation like the left did with Prop 8. When it comes to the democratic process, the ends do not justify the means.

Following this to it's logical conclusion, the result will be that big money will have more influence because only those who can afford to support their opinion without worrying for their livelihood will spend money on a campaign. I don't think any of us want to see even more influence given to Soros and the Koch brothers. I can see privacy being limited to a certain dollar amount, but with the cost of elections and ad campaigns, I think that threshold should be in the high 6 digits.

I agree that firing someone for their political beliefs alone is a very bad thing, but if I can invite Godwin to join the conversation, I wouldn’t blame a Kosher deli from firing an employee who organized the Nazi tiki torch march in Charlottesville as the employee's presence behind the counter would likely have a very negative effect on the store’s business. But moving back to the middle of the political spectrum, I’m cautiously optimistic that tolerance will work out in the long-run and firing people for their political activism will become increasingly rare (indeed, it’s very infrequent already), rather than become a common response.

Perhaps someday over a sous vide prime rib dinner I’ll tell you the story of my former firm in which two partners became embroiled in a very public fight over this issue. One was a stake president who donated a large sum to Prop 8; the other was a religious man whose daughter’s wedding had to be cancelled three days or so before the scheduled nuptials because of Prop 8. Ultimately, the LDS partner stayed at the firm which went public with a notice that tolerance for all points of view was a cornerstone of the nation’s (and the firm’s) belief system.

[Shaka]

I agree that firing someone for their political beliefs alone is a very bad thing, but if I can invite Godwin to join the conversation, I wouldn’t blame a Kosher deli from firing an employee who organized the Nazi tiki torch march in Charlottesville as the employee's presence behind the counter would likely have a very negative effect on the store’s business. But moving back to the middle of the political spectrum, I’m cautiously optimistic that tolerance will work out in the long-run and firing people for their political activism will become increasingly rare (indeed, it’s very infrequent already), rather than become a common response.

Perhaps someday over a sous vide prime rib dinner I’ll tell you the story of my former firm in which two partners became embroiled in a very public fight over this issue. One was a stake president who donated a large sum to Prop 8; the other was a religious man whose daughter’s wedding had to be cancelled three days or so before the scheduled nuptials because of Prop 8. Ultimately, the LDS partner stayed at the firm which went public with a notice that tolerance for all points of view was a cornerstone of the nation’s (and the firm’s) belief system.

Ummmm, either write it here or invite me to this meal. This is one I'd like to hear.

[cowboy]

strongly disagree. without open discourse by people regarding motive and rationale, there is no democracy.

I agree with your statement, but firing someone for supporting a ballot initiative is not open discourse. It is intimidation, and it stifles open discourse. I'm not saying campaign donations should be private at all levels, but because segments of our society have chosen to use intimidation to deter support of ballot measures I think it's reasonable to allow donations at a fairly high level to be private.

I agree that firing someone for their political beliefs alone is a very bad thing, but if I can invite Godwin to join the conversation, I wouldn’t blame a Kosher deli from firing an employee who organized the Nazi tiki torch march in Charlottesville as the employee's presence behind the counter would likely have a very negative effect on the store’s business. But moving back to the middle of the political spectrum, I’m cautiously optimistic that tolerance will work out in the long-run and firing people for their political activism will become increasingly rare (indeed, it’s very infrequent already), rather than become a common response.

As long as we're talking Nazi's, their tactics during Hitler's rise are noteworthy. Beating people up for their political views is illegal now, but the effects of a beating are shorter term than the effects of a destroyed career, which is still legal. As you note in your example, nobody should be saddled with an employee that acts offensively toward them, and it's a fine line. This has made me think, and I believe it comes down to this for me: If it's on the ballot, either a measure or candidate, individuals should be able to support it privately for the same reason that they are allowed to vote privately. There should be a limit to the amount of support an individual can offer privately, but it should be a large amount so as to give power to individuals to oppose the NRA's and Move On.org's in the country.

[swampfrog]

...if a voter can’t articulate a clear reason why they voted the way they did...

A lot of the current research is showing that most people cannot correctly articulate why they make most moral choices (and political decisions are quite often about moral choices). Choices occur mostly in the emotional centers of the brain and are not decided by the logic and reasoning centers. These areas serve to justify the choice already made by the emotional brain. The reasoning happens after the decision has been made. There is quite of bit of research suggesting this is valid.

One of the "stories" often used is that a brother and sister in their 30's decide to have protected sex, only once. Is this morally wrong?

see yourmorals.org for more information, and to see how your own morals mix with others.

[swampfrog]

Well, I cannot make them talk or express themselves. Most of my conversations are had in between classes or before class begins. I have class MTWThF with the same students, so I get to know them very well..six hours per week. In a literature class, I can pry more, and it's usually in English, so that helps. But, in my language classes, I'm kind of famous for chatting students up between classes...people will come in from the hallway to talk. I try and let them choose the topics and I basically just ask questions the whole time, pointedly, to make them think. But, if no one's talking, I'll ask a question, like, this morning, I said, "So, who thinks it's ok to shame someone on social media if they do something bad?" We then had a discussion where most people said that that was bullying and you couldn't do it, but then one person said it was ok to post racists, and suddenly everyone agreed and so I asked, what if they were just having a bad moment and said something they'd regret and would apologize for, mere moments after they said it...is it still ok? "Yes" said most. So I asked, "Have any of us ever said anything we wished we could take back?" It went from there until it was time to start class. Little 5-8 minute bits of thought...anything to keep them off their phones. I don't know if I got anywhere, but I keep trying. If I reach one, it's worth it.

I meant to post this article earlier, but a long description of what you are seeing and its causes can be found here.

[BlueK]

Going back to the original thought, I think the Constitutional Convention thing is a terrible idea, especially in today's environment with this President. The risk that the entire thing would be thrown out, Bill of Rights, separation of powers, etc., included, is just not worth it.