Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 54

Thread: Article V of the Constitution & a Constitutional Convention

  1. #1
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,375

    Default Article V of the Constitution & a Constitutional Convention

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ws-site-402097

    The website is currently crashed, I think reddit gave it the hug of death, but here's a snapshot from last week from thewayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/201802020...epublican.com/

    At the very bottom of the website, you can find this: "
    [COLOR=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.4)]Paid for by the Devin Nunes Campaign Committee · FEC ID #C00370056"

    [/COLOR]
    Fake news indeed. I think we need to dust off Article V of the Constitution and call a Convention so we can write some new Amendments. What would you like to see as amended and therefore, not up for major debate anymore?

    Here are some thoughts...I'm not sure of all of them, just some ideas I've been thinking about.

    1. No donations to campaigns by anyone but individuals, period. And then, limited to $1,000 per family, with some kind of adjustment for inflation through the years.
    2. No member of Congress shall be eligible to serve as a lobbyist for a period of ten years after leaving office.
    3. No member of Congress may run for any other elected office without first resigning their office in Congress.
    4. The procedural rules of the Senate or of the House may not be changed until after the next Congress shall be seated. Once opened, the rules of the floor shall remain the rules until the closure of that Congress. No one may change them at will.
    5. If a vacancy appears on the Supreme Court, the POTUS shall propose a suitable candidate. Confirmation hearings of any proposed candidate must begin with 45 days of the proposal or the candidate shall be deemed suitable by the Senate and proceed directly to the Court as confirmed.


    Now, some what ifs......

    What if the Attorney General were nationally elected? All attorneys general at state and local levels are, just about. Why not the federal one? That way, s/he can't be fired, except by the people. It would seem to solve some of our problems right now.

    What if we passed a law requiring anyone running for President to lay bare their finances for the preceding 20 years? It'd be pretty hard to hide nonsense going back that far, especially if SCOTUS had an independent investigative office empowered to look into anything.

    What if we forbade all tv, radio, and internet advertising of political campaigns? What if you wanted to reach people you made them read books or magazines, come to rallies, or assemblies, or made them engage, rather than be preached at? Devin Fucking Nunes is not going to inspire the masses. He got elected because of the party apparatus and kissing the right assus (pun intended). If we changed the kind of politician required to get elected, we could get real leaders...or we could get sociopaths. Big what if.

    Anyway, something's got to give. I see us in the parking lot at the Grand Canyon here. We're not teetering, we're not close, but in the back of my mind, I'm sensing danger all around where I previously thought it couldn't happen. I've got students talking glowingly of fascism, without even knowing what it is.....and if I try and draw any kind of parallel at all, even in an abstract, they shut down.

    When the kids think fascism is cool, you've got some serious fucking problems.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  2. #2
    Pre-Historic Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Allendale County, SC
    Posts
    11,319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ws-site-402097

    The website is currently crashed, I think reddit gave it the hug of death, but here's a snapshot from last week from thewayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/201802020...epublican.com/

    At the very bottom of the website, you can find this: "
    [COLOR=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.4)]Paid for by the Devin Nunes Campaign Committee · FEC ID #C00370056"

    [/COLOR]
    Fake news indeed. I think we need to dust off Article V of the Constitution and call a Convention so we can write some new Amendments. What would you like to see as amended and therefore, not up for major debate anymore?

    Here are some thoughts...I'm not sure of all of them, just some ideas I've been thinking about.

    1. No donations to campaigns by anyone but individuals, period. And then, limited to $1,000 per family, with some kind of adjustment for inflation through the years.
    2. No member of Congress shall be eligible to serve as a lobbyist for a period of ten years after leaving office.
    3. No member of Congress may run for any other elected office without first resigning their office in Congress.
    4. The procedural rules of the Senate or of the House may not be changed until after the next Congress shall be seated. Once opened, the rules of the floor shall remain the rules until the closure of that Congress. No one may change them at will.
    5. If a vacancy appears on the Supreme Court, the POTUS shall propose a suitable candidate. Confirmation hearings of any proposed candidate must begin with 45 days of the proposal or the candidate shall be deemed suitable by the Senate and proceed directly to the Court as confirmed.


    Now, some what ifs......

    What if the Attorney General were nationally elected? All attorneys general at state and local levels are, just about. Why not the federal one? That way, s/he can't be fired, except by the people. It would seem to solve some of our problems right now.

    What if we passed a law requiring anyone running for President to lay bare their finances for the preceding 20 years? It'd be pretty hard to hide nonsense going back that far, especially if SCOTUS had an independent investigative office empowered to look into anything.

    What if we forbade all tv, radio, and internet advertising of political campaigns? What if you wanted to reach people you made them read books or magazines, come to rallies, or assemblies, or made them engage, rather than be preached at? Devin Fucking Nunes is not going to inspire the masses. He got elected because of the party apparatus and kissing the right assus (pun intended). If we changed the kind of politician required to get elected, we could get real leaders...or we could get sociopaths. Big what if.

    Anyway, something's got to give. I see us in the parking lot at the Grand Canyon here. We're not teetering, we're not close, but in the back of my mind, I'm sensing danger all around where I previously thought it couldn't happen. I've got students talking glowingly of fascism, without even knowing what it is.....and if I try and draw any kind of parallel at all, even in an abstract, they shut down.

    When the kids think fascism is cool, you've got some serious fucking problems.
    I would never want a modern Constitutional Convention, it would be too politically correct and the concepts of constitutional principles would be above many of the participants. It would be a disaster.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

  3. #3
    UofU/BYU mixed marriage Scott R Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Meridian, ID
    Posts
    810

    Default

    I'm in pretty much total agreement right up to the TV/radio part, which is probably going a bit too far. Even though I read a lot of books, I don't get political information from them. And I read newspapers and magazine online for the most part.

    I do happen to think that both of the major parties are a long way from representing me and have way too much control over who I'm allowed to vote for. And I've tried getting involved in political parties way back, but it's extremely tough for a regular non-politician to have much influence at all with them. I gave up in frustration and changed my party affiliation to none of the above.

  4. #4

    Default

    Included in your diatribe about a new constitutional convention are ways to narrow the scope of the 1st Amendment.

    Then you finish off your diatribe claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you is fascist.

    Hillary Clinton didn't lose due to lack of money, especially compared to what Trump spent. She was an unlikable candidate with no discernable leadership or management skill. There have been nine elections since 1952 where the incumbent party was trying to win a third or more consecutive term and the incumbent party has won exactly once.

    In other words, settle down. The Democrats can try to win back Congress in the fall and the White House in 2020 by running against unpopular aspects re Trump, just like non-incumbent parties have done throughout our history.
    Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

  5. #5
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default

    It is estimated that about $5 billion was spent on the 2016 elections. A staggering sum, right? But it's not quite as big as the $5.8 billion spent on advertising for restaurants in 2015.

    That's right-- we spend less money trying to persuade our fellow citizens how they should exercise their sovereignty than on what they should eat for dinner on Tuesday.

    Color me unconcerned about campaign finance.

    I am also completely unconcerned about fascists taking over. People hate nazis as much now as ever. (The bigger issue is how quickly we label someone as a fascist. Keep that up and it may be tough to notice when the genuine article comes around.)
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  6. #6
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default

    I would repeal the 17th, though.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  7. #7

    Default

    I would limit campaigning to two months before prior to election day.
    I would get rid of corporate campaign contributions and limit individual contributions.
    I would limit terms in the senate to two and limit the terms of the house to four.

  8. #8

    Default

    still not sold on the 19th
    Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Next to the Ocean
    Posts
    859

    Default

    At first glance I think the AG should be elected.

  10. #10
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default Article V of the Constitution & a Constitutional Convention

    Quote Originally Posted by OceanBlue View Post
    At first glance I think the AG should be elected.
    Given our last few nationally elected officials I'm not so sure.

    Let me put it another way. Do you really want the person who ultimately decides who does and does not get charged with federal crimes to be subject to the whims of the masses and to take his cues from the thronging mobs? Thank you, no.
    Last edited by All-American; 02-11-2018 at 08:59 PM.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  11. #11
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by old_gregg View Post
    still not sold on the 19th
    I've also given some thought to the 18th and determined that it is probably just as well if that one is repealed.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  12. #12
    Bald not naked Pelado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The 208
    Posts
    9,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    I would repeal the 17th, though.
    Amen.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
    "I think it was King Benjamin who said 'you sorry ass shitbags who have no skills that the market values also have an obligation to have the attitude that if one day you do in fact win the PowerBall Lottery that you will then impart of your substance to those without.'"
    - Goatnapper'96

  13. #13
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    28,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    It is estimated that about $5 billion was spent on the 2016 elections. A staggering sum, right? But it's not quite as big as the $5.8 billion spent on advertising for restaurants in 2015.

    That's right-- we spend less money trying to persuade our fellow citizens how they should exercise their sovereignty than on what they should eat for dinner on Tuesday.

    Color me unconcerned about campaign finance.

    I am also completely unconcerned about fascists taking over. People hate nazis as much now as ever. (The bigger issue is how quickly we label someone as a fascist. Keep that up and it may be tough to notice when the genuine article comes around.)
    Why can't both numbers be too high?
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  14. #14
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    Why can't both numbers be too high?
    Because I don't like the idea of someone out there telling us how much of either is too much.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  15. #15
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    It is estimated that about $5 billion was spent on the 2016 elections. A staggering sum, right? But it's not quite as big as the $5.8 billion spent on advertising for restaurants in 2015.

    That's right-- we spend less money trying to persuade our fellow citizens how they should exercise their sovereignty than on what they should eat for dinner on Tuesday.

    Color me unconcerned about campaign finance.

    I am also completely unconcerned about fascists taking over. People hate nazis as much now as ever. (The bigger issue is how quickly we label someone as a fascist. Keep that up and it may be tough to notice when the genuine article comes around.)
    It is not the advertising, per se, that bothers me, it's the influence that it buys. In order to purchase that advertising, you need a source for the money, and those sources can threaten to cut off that money, causing you to bend to their will. THAT is the problem.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  16. #16
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,542

    Default

    I am with AA on this one.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  17. #17
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post

    I am also completely unconcerned about fascists taking over. People hate nazis as much now as ever. (The bigger issue is how quickly we label someone as a fascist. Keep that up and it may be tough to notice when the genuine article comes around.)
    I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  18. #18
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
    There are 300+ million people in this country. Of course we have bona fide fascists. And they're harder to ignore now, given the availability of social media as a platform and the eagerness of CNN et al. to trumpet their going-ons. Nevertheless, I feel pretty comfortable believing that we are winning the war.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  19. #19
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    It is not the advertising, per se, that bothers me, it's the influence that it buys. In order to purchase that advertising, you need a source for the money, and those sources can threaten to cut off that money, causing you to bend to their will. THAT is the problem.
    This is not nothing. But at the end of the day, you can't buy influence from someone who doesn't have any, and the only way to get that influence is for voters to give it to you.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
    When people with lots of education, experience, and intelligence in a certain field, say "Hey, we should probably be doing something about this", sometimes emphatically, then just maybe it makes sense to listen to what they are saying. At least to be informed about it, what causes it, and what the potential risks are. I thought that was the whole point of checks-and-balances built into our system. The law doesn't actually do the work of checking and balancing, it just allows for it, which means someone has to actually keep an eye out. It looks like they are:



    Anytime there is a significant push for a specific ideology--and people are scared to oppose the ideology for fear of their jobs or in some cases threats of violence, there is cause for concern that shouldn't be ignored. It's a serious problem that the next generation of kids are arriving in college without being able to handle criticism of their indoctrination beliefs.

  21. #21
    Senior Member Goatnapper'96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    God's Country!
    Posts
    9,777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
    Why are the kids allowed to shut down at a University?

    I think you professors mean well but the issue in our country is a lack of morality. That leads to corruption. There has always been money and corrupt people I just happen to believe more people in our civilization put a higher priority on their short term benefit than the damage their shortsightedness does to systems. There is no law that a thousand really smart people are going to come up with that will fix that challenge.

    It really still is about "We, the People." It isn't President Trump's fault or Hugh Hefner, it is us.
    Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
    -General George S. Patton

    I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
    -DOCTOR Wuap

  22. #22
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    4,550

    Default

    I'm with AA on most of his suggestions.

    My own 2 cents:

    I don't necessarily think we need a constitutional amendment for campaign finance. I think we need to get rid of the personal contribution limits to campaigns and if that doesn't get rid of super-PACS, then require that they disclose donations. I'm not for limiting speech, but speech is a public thing, hiding financing/contributions seems counter to the concept of free speech. If something is to be expressed, those hearing it are entitled to the context and circumstances associated with that speech.

  23. #23
    Soul Plumber wuapinmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Hartsville, South Carolina
    Posts
    28,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
    Why are the kids allowed to shut down at a University?.
    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.
    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

  24. #24

    Default

    it's all just a friendly Constitutional Convention until they decide we no longer want or need a Bill of Rights. Then what? I don't think I trust a bunch of right wingers from places like Alabama with some of those freedoms.
    Last edited by BlueK; 02-12-2018 at 12:29 PM.

  25. #25
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    28,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wuapinmon View Post
    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.


    You go wuap!
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beefytee View Post
    ...I'm not for limiting speech, but speech is a public thing, hiding financing/contributions seems counter to the concept of free speech. If something is to be expressed, those hearing it are entitled to the context and circumstances associated with that speech.
    I disagree. The reason we have secret ballots is to avoid voter intimidation. Campaign donations are an extension of this concept. Nobody should be afraid to vote for fear of the consequences. Using this logic, people should then not be afraid to support a candidate or cause that is on a ballot.

    It is not society's responsibility to intimidate people into supporting the right cause; that's the job of the courts and the constitution. If a law is passed that tramples civil liberty, courts will eventually make things right. Likewise, if someone who supports these laws is a reprehensible human being, their colors will eventually show without delving into their voting record. Conversely, a lot of people are good people who support bad legislation out of ignorance or a personal weakness. One decision doesn't necessarily make a person bad, and certainly shouldn't cost them their career if it is a lawful decision at the time.

    If a candidate or issue makes it to the ballot through legal and accepted means, people should not fear voting or supporting the candidate/issue, yet that is exactly what has evolved. People have lost their jobs merely for contributing to a ballot measure. People are using campaign finance disclosure to suppress votes and intimidate voters- perhaps not from voting a specific way, but certainly from supporting certain positions. In my mind, this is an unconscionable affront to the democratic process, and the only way to stop it is by keeping campaign donations private.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaka View Post
    I would limit campaigning to two months before prior to election day.
    I would get rid of corporate campaign contributions and limit individual contributions.
    I would limit terms in the senate to two and limit the terms of the house to four.
    I like the cut of your jib. US elections are absurdly long, when compared to almost every other democratic country.

  28. #28
    Semper infra dignitatem PaloAltoCougar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Pleasanton, CA
    Posts
    11,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    I disagree. The reason we have secret ballots is to avoid voter intimidation. Campaign donations are an extension of this concept. Nobody should be afraid to vote for fear of the consequences. Using this logic, people should then not be afraid to support a candidate or cause that is on a ballot.

    It is not society's responsibility to intimidate people into supporting the right cause; that's the job of the courts and the constitution. If a law is passed that tramples civil liberty, courts will eventually make things right. Likewise, if someone who supports these laws is a reprehensible human being, their colors will eventually show without delving into their voting record. Conversely, a lot of people are good people who support bad legislation out of ignorance or a personal weakness. One decision doesn't necessarily make a person bad, and certainly shouldn't cost them their career if it is a lawful decision at the time.

    If a candidate or issue makes it to the ballot through legal and accepted means, people should not fear voting or supporting the candidate/issue, yet that is exactly what has evolved. People have lost their jobs merely for contributing to a ballot measure. People are using campaign finance disclosure to suppress votes and intimidate voters- perhaps not from voting a specific way, but certainly from supporting certain positions. In my mind, this is an unconscionable affront to the democratic process, and the only way to stop it is by keeping campaign donations private.
    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.

  29. #29
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    4,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    I disagree. The reason we have secret ballots is to avoid voter intimidation. Campaign donations are an extension of this concept. Nobody should be afraid to vote for fear of the consequences. Using this logic, people should then not be afraid to support a candidate or cause that is on a ballot.

    It is not society's responsibility to intimidate people into supporting the right cause; that's the job of the courts and the constitution. If a law is passed that tramples civil liberty, courts will eventually make things right. Likewise, if someone who supports these laws is a reprehensible human being, their colors will eventually show without delving into their voting record. Conversely, a lot of people are good people who support bad legislation out of ignorance or a personal weakness. One decision doesn't necessarily make a person bad, and certainly shouldn't cost them their career if it is a lawful decision at the time.

    If a candidate or issue makes it to the ballot through legal and accepted means, people should not fear voting or supporting the candidate/issue, yet that is exactly what has evolved. People have lost their jobs merely for contributing to a ballot measure. People are using campaign finance disclosure to suppress votes and intimidate voters- perhaps not from voting a specific way, but certainly from supporting certain positions. In my mind, this is an unconscionable affront to the democratic process, and the only way to stop it is by keeping campaign donations private.
    I'm not suggesting getting rid of private ballots. While that is a form of speech, it isn't what I'm addressing here.

    I do think those who want to express themselves publically or support public causes also have to stand behind what they are supporting. We need a system where people are free to share but also responsible for what they share.

    While Mozilla had every right to fire their CEO for his donation, I completely disagree with their decision. I no longer use Firefox and will never support the foundation and encourage others to do the same. The CEO has to live with his decision and the foundation has to live with theirs.

    There is always going to be intimidation. I don't think hiding and secrecy is the answer to it.

  30. #30
    Board eye candy beefytee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lehi
    Posts
    4,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
    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.
    As usual, PAC states it much better than I do.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •