Fundrace----> political paranoia & hypocrasy on DU?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

I've been reading the "Fundrace" thread (about this site that lists campaign contributions, who contributed, and where they live) on and off tonight, and I really am amazied at the level of paranoia, naivete, and perhaps hypocrasy exhibited there.

First off, my name appears on that site as a Kucinich contributor for the Dayton, Ohio, area.

The thing is is that i was aware, when I was contributing, that per the campaign finance laws, this contribution would have to be reported. I would expect others who are making substantial contributions to their candidate of choice, and who have been following politics, are aware of the campaign finance reforms that require disclosure. So I think the outcry over this illustrates a bit of political naivite, or perhaps a lack of political sophistication, on the part of some posters.

I had no problem whatsover about this level of financial disclosure. I understand the entire purpose of these laws is to make the flow of money into poliitics somewhat transparent, Sites like Fundrace (there other other sites, too) make this transparency easily accessible to the public.

I would expect that people at a site like DU would support this transparency too, as it illustrates bundling of funds, and who or what community of donors (interest groups, industrys, etc) are supporting what candidate (with the assumption that money buys access or influence). So I think its a bit hypocritical for progressives to bemoan transparency when its there donations that are being transparent, too.

As for the question of reprisal, I think thats a bit paranoid. I work in a very conservative environment, yet am a valued employee. I could imagine some raised eyebrows if it ever came out that I was financially supporting Kucinich, but so what? Its a free country and I liked that candidate.

In any case, it is suprsing to see the reactions to this level of transparency. Personally I think its a good thing, and makes me a more informed citizen.

[shoopnyc123]

1. Not true...

a frind of mines employer JUST TODAY questioned my friend about his donation...it is a cause for concern.

[Jack_Dawson]

2. It's a BIG-TIME cause for concern

You people can prattle on about our "naivete" all you want, but that condescending attitude is a real turn-off to people (like me) who only recently started to give a shit about politics. NOWHERE when I donated to Clark was it made apparent that by donating to Clark, I can kiss my unlisted address goodbye. NOWHERE when I donated to Clark, was it listed that the whole world would know my name, rank and serial number as far as employment is concerned.

So you can take all your "are you registered to vote?" questions and stuff them because you don't live in the same world that I do. My employer does NOT need to know my political affiliation. Potential junk-mail salespeople do NOT need to know my address. Transparency is great, yes...BUT how about informing us BEFOREHAND that our info will show up on the Internet for everyone to see?

You don't get 200 replies to a post when a topic is so "common knowledge."

[AP]

5. Did you not know that the FEC required disclosure of that information?

[Jack_Dawson]

6. Did you know that Clark's Donation site didn't mention FEC rules?

[AP]

7. Nope. I didn't know that. But I did know that anyone could look up

donations on opensecrets.gov, and I knew that they got the info from the FEC, and I knew that in the US we don't allow secret donations to political parties (or that that was the ideal).

[Jack_Dawson]

8. Why would a non-political junkie know that or care?

People see someone on TV, decide they like him or her, go to the website and donate.

[AP]

9. Not to sound like a jackass, but, from growing up in America.

I've known forever that we don't allow people to secretly donate money to politicians. I know that it was hard to get this info up to about 10 years ago. But I don't really see the problem with it. I appreciate that some powerful employers might retaliate against employees, but, hey, I'm going to use the info to retaliate against some powerful employers.

Furthermore, watch big corproations fire Democrats. Productivity will tank and they'll go out of business.

Also, lets not confuse the Democrats with the The Communisty Party -- it's not some far out left wing group. Goldman Sacks gives more money to Democrats than Republicans. You're in the company of some very powerful people if you give to Democrats.

[Jack_Dawson]

10. Like I said, why would a non-political junkie (think Wal-Mart shopper)

know or care about campaign finance laws that say "we will publish your home address if you donate"???

I am a University of California graduate with two degrees (one in political science) and yes I know that donating is public record, but I did not know my home address, title and company were going to be on the Internet. All I would like is a little disclosure. I'm sure you can understand that.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yemp4734]

32. "Why would a non-political junkie know that"

Let me ask you this - Had you EVER heard "X corporation gave X money to X candidate" prior to donating? Did you just NOT think "hmm I wonder where that info came from?" Come on people THINK.

on edit: IF you were not a US citizen until recently (i.e. you haven't been here very long) THEN you have an excuse. But if you were an adult who grew up here there is no excuse. Hell, every decent high school gov book says campaign donations are reported.

[Jack_Dawson]

45. Reported, yes. Home address on the Internet?

That's pretty new. To most people anyway.

[Yemp4734]

54. See my thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1258336

It may not be of use to you depending on where you live, but it may be to at least a degree.

Yes, info being put on the net is somewhat new I suppose. But if anyone wanted to they could always walk in a gov building and ask for it. The only difference is now you don't have to use gas.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

19. I think that would be fair.

...for online contributions or paper mailers soliciting contributions.

Some sort of clear and visible (no small print) warninig box or statement about legal requirments for full disclosure of name, addy, and place of employment of contributors.

[Yemp4734]

31. Where have you been??

"how about informing us BEFOREHAND that our info will show up on the Internet for everyone to see? "

This has been the case for the past 20 years. Do you want to be informed that a red light means stop too? This is like drinking a bottle of clorox then saying "well no one told me it would be bad for me!" (the logic that leads us to put warning labels saying such) But hey, some people need the obvious told to them I suppose.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your political "concerns" so seriously. Employers going to fire you etc etc etc. For someone who is just now finding out campaign donations are reported as public record and have been for a VERY long time you MAY not know as much as you think. For example - all the time when you were blissfully unaware of donations being reported, there was no problem. But now all of a sudden you fear your employer. Uh huh. Interesting timeing.

Guess what - your employer fires you SUE. Damn, if I was you I would be so happy it's not even funny. I WISH my repub employer would fire me for donating to Kucinich. I'd like to retire early as a millionaire. It would be a slam dunk law suit. Same to the guy above who says his "friend" was questioned by his employer. Hell, call any attorney and you can retire today. Oh, assuming it actually happened of course.

"So you can take all your "are you registered to vote?" questions and stuff them because you don't live in the same world that I do."

You don't live in the united states?

"was it made apparent that by donating to Clark, I can kiss my unlisted address goodbye"

If you think you are not listed anywhere but the phone book you really DON'T live in the same world I do.

[Jack_Dawson]

48. Unlisted, til Now

Would've been nice to see a disclaimer somewhere along the way...

Oh well. That'll teach ME to get involved with politics. Back to sports...you political know-it-alls can have your hobby back.

[nicecakes]

11. Then don't donate

If you give cash then you give your name. It's real simple.

[Jack_Dawson]

12. Umm...

I think why everyone is so pissed off is because none of the candidates' websites came out and said your home address would be public domain.

"Simple" in the mind of a political junkie. Maybe not so "simple" in the mind of someone new to politics.

[Yemp4734]

35. You make your self sound like a novice politically

yet you say you graduated from the U of C in political science? Not exactly reflective of how you are portraying your self.

"Maybe not so "simple" in the mind of someone new to politics"

New to politics? A political science grad is "new" to politics? I call BS. Sounds like you have an agenda here.

"none of the candidates' "

Hmmmm....

[Jack_Dawson]

40. The condescending bit is a nice touch...

Keep it up. It's very appealing.

[Yemp4734]

42. I'm not being condescending

I am asking you how a political sci grad is new to politics, and portrays his/her self as being some kind of novice that didn't know campaign donations were public record. It's a legit question.

The same way it would be a legit question if I said I had 5 degrees in advanced math, but said I couldn't solve 5 + 5 + 10 =?. Wouldn't you question that claim then?

You haven't answered. This makes me believe you are not being entirely honest for some reason.

[Jack_Dawson]

43. We studied Marxism, not FEC laws

The Internet wasn't around yet.

but the fact that this is now a news story, means a lot of other people were not aware of this gross invasion of privacy. Old news for you, fine. But a lot of people out there ARE fairly new to politics, to campaigns and to the nuances of campaign financing.

Your 2+2 = 4 argument undoubtedly caused a great laugh within yourself this Saturday. Look at how omniscient you are, and how hopeless the rest of America is. But that's not really doing much to engage people in a civil discourse.

[Yemp4734]

50. Alright

"The Internet wasn't around yet."

You didn't mention that. Still, what year were you there? It was available in hard copy before it was on the net. And if all you did was study Marxism it obviously wasn't a very good class to allow people to graduate with political sci degrees studying only Marxism. If anything, this info should have been included in a section titled "Why campaign donations are public record in the states vs. the soviet union".

"but the fact that this is now a news story, means a lot of other people were not aware of this gross invasion of privacy"

All I care about is this - will you be supporting the future GOP move (if there is one) to classify this info or not? That is the question I will be asking all dems when Rove gets wind of this and the media campaign against public donation info begins.

"Look at how omniscient you are, and how hopeless the rest of America is. But that's not really doing much to engage people in a civil discourse."

You have been told this has been the case for a very long time. You have been told why it was the case. (to curb political corruption before it was the case, which it has done) You refuse to hear. Not my fault. There is little to discuss. This matter was discussed long ago, and this is what dems believed best.

I agree - it may be best to amend current law the require a disclaimer be placed on all donation forms. But that's all.

[Jack_Dawson]

52. Apology Accepted

:toast:

[Yemp4734]

53. Hehe

I do apologize for making some assumptions.

[Redleg]

59. One can have a degree in political science and not be familiar

with things like campaign finance disclosure and other things. Poli sci is a broad discipline with specialities in a number of areas other than domestic government and politics.

[Yemp4734]

29. Names?

A "friend" of mine just won the lotto for 55 million too! YEA!

[FlemingsGhost]

3. If you are going to make a charge of hypocrisy...

You might want to spell it correctly.

;-)


(on edit: typo! Oh, the irony...)

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

17. LOL..OK

....thanks!

I probably should have said "ironic" rather than "hypocritical"....

....you aren't reall getting too much of the "disclosure is ok for thee but not for me" sentiment, more just suprise that the info is as public as it it.

In any case its an interesting reaction.

[AP]

4. Hell, I'd be proud to be on a fascist black list!

Being on a list of people donating to Democrats isn't half as noble as being on fascists's black list.

This is just a list of people who have donated to the party that will most likely be in power in 2005. This isn't anything to be afraid of.

If anyone's friends' employers are thinking about getting revenge, then you get revenge on that employer. Out them here.

[dmartin29]

13. Overwhelmed by the response

I am overwhelmed by the perceived controversy the awareness of this site (fundrace) and the many others with the same, and some even more detailed, content. I was busy for the past day so I did not see this develop on DU so the picture I get, viewing the general outrage, is amazing. I hope a night's sleep, some real discussion, face to face, with other progressives and some calm reflection will help people see this for what it is. This is one of the prime examples of how openness in Democracy is and should be and how technology can enhance that openness.
From back in the "CompuServe" days I have been part of groups that demanded this be more available, more accurate and more timely. Why should only the "fat cats" with lawyers or others located in DC have access to this information? These disclosures have been integral in exposing corruption of candidates and the electoral process.

I am truly sorry that anyone unaware that their donations would be publicly available feels exposed but for many, many of us that do not consider ourselves "political junkies", this has indeed been "common knowledge". If you feel threatened that your job or home life or anything else is in jeopardy from this keep in mind it is (still) illegal to discriminate in anyway based on this information. It is also important to realize this is nothing new. If people were to have repercussions for their donations "enmass" it would already have been happening. In fact it has been for a long time in various "Town" governments here on Long Island and the increased availability of this information has been used to fight the discrimination in court. Towns would fire individuals, fail to promote and cancel contracts unless you were on the lists. Now when you can more easily show the patterns they are unable continue (as easily) the practice.

I hope not to cause more outrage but this is not the only type of disclosure out there. While not required to submit each donation based on limits, supporters of "not for profit agencies" information is also available on the web and as shown with someone's "whois" search of "fundrace" all the information of people holding internet domains is there as well. I believe the answer quoted from someone at FEC and the "outrage" of some people talking with some Judges in other threads were some examples of encountering some misinformed people; these disclosures have been held up as legal on every test they have been put to.

I guess I may only be fueling the flames but in the true belief in openness the site "Political Moneyline" at http://www.tray.com/ is much more comprehensive and seems to use some better data mining software in the examples I just tested. I had not used the other site until reading the recent posts and was somewhat disappointed in the results.

[JNelson6563]

14. What was posted was inaccurate anyhow

The site that the link for is floating around here isn't even accurate. I won't go into detail re: the errors but it's true.

The outcry we see here confirms all that I suspected. See back in the primary season we were heavily infiltrated by a lot of new posters who were obviously very new to politics. If you disagreed with them civil discussion was impossible. They were as green as could be.

The cluelessness re: political donations screams this fact loudly.

Another thing I find very amusing about this unintended exposure of green-ness (politically speaking) is how those who claim DU has changed are met with curt dismissals and scorn. Yet now the board is heavily populated by folks who have no clue about politics. A year ago I don't think you'd be seeing this. I suspect many of the grizzled vets of the political world have moved on, the primary season having been instrumental in that decision no doubt.

Very interesting.

Julie

[Media_Lies_Daily]

15. I do notice a difference in the amount of information reported by...

...FundRace as opposed to Political Moneyline. FundRace is reporting actual street addresses of each donor while Political Monyline does not.

IMHO, I think the reporting of the street addresses is the major point of contention, not that the donations were publicly reported. I think we all know that there are certain elements in politics (goon squads) that will have a high probability of using the street addresses for activities other than those normally condoned.

I also think that this is telling criminal elements that certain people have money, and by the way, here's where they live.

And please, let's not go into the "newcomers to politics" argument. I've been an avid political junkie since 1960 when I was old enough to understand the differences between JFK and Nixon, but not yet old enough to vote.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. You don't need fundrace to know who has money

Try driving by houses. The big fancy ones have folks inside with money.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

27. The "street address" issue.

I suspect the "street addres" thing was away of getting netsurfers involved with the site as sort of an online game....."lets see who gave what in my neighborhood?".....the intent was probably benign.

Yet, this could have been done via zip code, too. So, I can see the concern as this might be drilling too far down.

That being said I think name, buisiness, and employer would have to be on the site so one cant see contribution trends, if bundling is going on, or some wealthy person was funneling money through his wife, relatives, etc. I did see that happen with a local buisness owner, where he, his wife, and kids all contributed $2K to Bush.

[Yemp4734]

41. Actually

the employer information is VERY important. It can back people up who say "My employer at Wal Mart demanded we all donate to Bush", or at least make that visible.

Employers generally don't fire people for donating to an opposition party, but they HAVE been known to tell people (or "encourage") people to donate to someone.

[Mr.Green93]

16. that is a good site. Thanks

[Mixxster]

25. http://www.tray.com is much more comprehensive

But it doesn't list a donor's exact street address, which is what a lot of folks object to. Of course, you can do another search and find out, but why is it necessary for these sites to make it so easy for anyone to see exactly where someone lives, in some cases even linking to a map.

[Yemp4734]

36. Exactly

this info being public hasn't led to more people being fired/whatever - it has been used to help PREVENT that from continuing.

[Logansquare]

51. It showed me how many Dems aren't putting their money

where their mouths are. Fundrace is showing even the small (under $250) contributions, and by God, a lot of us are being cheapskates. I found out that my very liberal, ex-Naderite brother feels ok about having Kucinich stickers on his car,but can't be bothered to write a check for $50 to the campaign. Believe me, he can afford it!
If all the loudmouths I know who decry the damage George Bush has done could cancel their cable for two months and give the money to Kerry, we'd be able to beat these bastards! If you make over $40,000/yr and your name isn't in Fundrace, then shame on you. And if you make less than that, how about $10 or even $20 to beat the worst thing that has happened to this country since Nixon?!!!

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

55. I feel like a piker!

After looking at those multiple $2K contributions to Bush, i can see I need to contribute to Kerry. I already gave what I thought was alot to Kucinich, but, heck, look at the $$$ Bush is raising!

[Logansquare]

56. Amen! Don't let those Bush *uckers beat us!

No wonder the Bushies think we are weak and useless. We need to give our "widow's mite" even if it doesn't seem significant. Every dollar counts!

[Lars39]

20. I think it is naive to think that reprisals are not a possibility.

You don't live where many of us live.

[ldoolin]

21. The issue for me isn't the transparency, the issue is...

publishing home addresses. That's a privacy violation.

In any case, their database appears to be horribly incomplete. I entered my zip code to check, and neither my donations to Dean nor my smaller one to Kucinich show up.

[hyphenate]

62. The listings

are only up to December 31, 2003 from what I've heard. They said they would add the last two and a half months when figures were available.

[HFishbine]

22. Absolutely hypocritical -- especially for Clarkies

Many Clark supporters have become good DU "friends," but there is a lesson for them here that I hope I can point out without being too confrontational.

Let's start with the fact that knowing what fundrace.org reveals is good for democracy. None of it is clandestine. It is how we, the public, can determine if a particular candidate is being supported by a large number of people from a particular industry, if individuals are abiding by contribution limits, if corporate money is being funnelled through employees and if large contributions are being funnelled through family members. All of this information is good for democracy and has been previously utilized copiously here on DU in support of candidates and against them. "We" had no problem with it when it was other people who were being scrutinized.

Now, here is where the Clarkies should pause and think. Most, if not all of the Clark supporters here on DU defended CAPPS II, the airline passenger screening program, and Clark's lobbying for it on behalf of Acxiom. CAPPS II will take this kind of publicly available information along with other consumer data and build a "profile" of American citizens to pre-determine those who "might" be a threat.

It's ironic, if not hypocritical, for people to object to the mere publication of information while defending a program that will compile that information for the purpose of pre-emptive detention.

Fundrace puts important information in the hands of the public so that WE can scrutinize the process. CAPPS II creates a massive surveillance program which has as its goal using the same type of information to categorize people for the purpose of government action against them. Which is worthy of our outrage?

[Jack_Dawson]

34. And again, my home address is off limits

Nice attempt at morphing two very different issues, but the home address is what people are objecting to. I'm thrilled that you don't care about your privacy. I do. We're different.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

37. No its not.

I don't know what state you are in, but if you live in Ohio or Kentucky and you are registered to vote your name, address, and political affiliation is public record, as it how often you vote.

This information is available from the county boards of elections (presumably it can be downloaded and posted online, too), and is publically posted outside voting places on election day.

If you live in these states, and want to keep your political affiliation with the Democratic Party secret you will have to register as an independent or as a Republican.

I know we are not talking about something like that Fundrace site, but if you are going to register to vote and declare a party affiliation this will be public record, available to anyone who wants to find out bad enough.

[MrPrax]

23. I don't think people are hypocrites...

for simply pointing out a serious problem with the level of disclosure on the site.

It is possible that knowledge of this disclosure might intimidate people as individuals to even think about giving money--whereas 'anonymous' corporate donations can go on as usual.

Also it seems foolhardy to simply rely on the 'kindness' of strangers and the decency of good gentlemanly conduct and not think that in explicitly 'tough battles', supporters on the Right might not use the information to target high profile donors in various ways...also can be a good way of identifying third party supporters

Publishing information in this way also gives a 'plausible cover' to any data mining by partisans that might go on that is less than legal...if caught they can simply say they got the information from the published list.

Also there is a dynamic at play within community based organizing--it is possible that accusations of 'putting your money where your mouth is' can become an effective way of strongarm salesmanship ("everyone else GAVE money, why not YOU") or simply marginalizing those that didn't contribute within groups...

This, like publishing the names of convicted drunk drivers in the local paper, have certain ramalifications that go beyond simply 'posting names to keep the system fair'...

I think it is important that folks demand how exactly will such a potential dangerous thing actually IMPROVES the democratic process as to fairness, equality and reading the will of the people.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

26. true. I posted upthread that "hypocrite" was a poor choice of words

...I think I really should have said ironic.

I do I think people should be made aware, clearly aware (not via small print) that some "personal" data becomes public record as part of our laws on political financial transparency if they choose to make substantial campaign contributions.

That being said I think this is the tradeoff we have to make if we want transparency.

[Warren Stuart]

24. I donated to Edwards and was made very aware that the

Information was going to be reported to the FEC and that it would be public information.

If you make a donation under $200 then it dosn't have to be reported.

So start a $199 donation campaign. That's the most people can afford to donate anyway.

[havocmom]

28. Perhaps the fear mongering is a Rovian/Racicot ploy?

There has been supposed transparency for many years now. Large donors and their puppets fought it tooth and nail. They wanted their influence to be a big secret. Not good, in a representative democracy, for elected Representatives of the People to have silent partners.

Suddenly the liberal side of the isle starts making headway in the money chase the GOP has been so strong on. Ever wonder why Clinton is so hated and maligned? When you ask the average joe on the street why he hates Clinton, he cannot give a valid, rational response. He has been conditioned to hate because powerful people decided Clinton was a real threat to their control of the system.

The media really clobbered a certain Dem from Vermont and effectively put him out of the race for the nomination. Gee, let's think, who was it who worked internet miracles raising funds from real grass roots? I heard it put very well, "He got Carter-ized by the press because he was a real threat to business as usual in politics."

Well, the voice from Vermont has carried the message through to a lot of people about the need to raise cash to fight the status quo. So now it is happening for the Democratic party. That has to be a major concern to Rove & Racicot as the sins of the puppet regime start getting noticed.

The transparency has always been there when you put your money where your heart is in politics. And you are starting to make such a difference that the slanted playing field is starting to level off a bit. They are trying to scare and intimidate you because you now scare and intimidate them!. Bravo! Keep up the good work.

Anybody old enough to remember civil rights marches? Major case of irresistible force (advocates for realization of rights for all our people) and immovable object (bullheaded resistance to justice for all). They used many tactics against the grass root organization of people seeking to make the nation better. They used insane laws, police abuse, intimidation, fire hoses, fire bombs, baseball bats, knives, nooses and dogs.

Brave people stood their ground in the face of certain harm back then.
The barriers started coming down and America took a giant step towards fulfilling its potential as a free nation.

Jeeze, people, you are not gonna let the likes of Rove, Racicot and the gang that couldn't piss straight intimidate you into hiding from standing for your principles publicly, are you? If you let public disclosure of campaign contributions stop you from supporting the government you want, you are telling BFEE you will take the government they bought.

For those who went before us and those who come after, stand up against the boogey man who wants you to shut up and sit on your hands during this crucial campaign. For America to exist, America must be defended at all times, from all enemies. Those who would intimidate you into silence are enemies, no matter what the emblem on their podium claims.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

30. I dont know if I agree with everything you say...

....You are sort of implying sort of a conspiracy theory, that some of the folks questioning this are either working :"undercover", or are influenced by the conservatives somehow.

Im not sure I agree with that.

I think people are really concerned.

I, myself, don't feel that fear, and think its unrealistic.

But then I don't know the kind of environment these people live in, which sounds quite repressive if they can't state their political beliefs, or have their political affiliation be publicly known, even in an indirect way such as on these campaign finance sites.

[havocmom]

38. Doens't take a tin foiler to know the population had been conditioned

to fear things they should take in hand.

Yes I know people are really concerned, and some probably with good cause. There are lots of hateful people out there. I am a woman who lived alone in a violent city for a long time. Had to choose between being a house mouse or living life and accepting that I was mortal.

What I am suggesting is that we look at who gains what if we let our fear prevent us from acting on our principles. People need a bit of perspective and context to help them display the courage our nation needs from We The People.

All it takes for evil to ....

[Yemp4734]

39. I am worried about this too

if the repubs catch on to dems being upset about this... They would like nothing more than for this law (and others) to go away. If Bush & Pals are smart enough they could potentially use this dem outrage to repeal these laws. If so we can kiss future elections goodbye.

Remember it was dems in congress supporting laws like this. Most people here probably supported them at the time. (if you don't like the law now then all I can say is don't be a sheep and blindly support anything the dems in congress support, or at least read the actual bill first) The repubs hate these laws. If they thought they could get them repealed I am sure they would move on it. Before anyone goes and starts any movements, remember who you will be helping. If you ever were successful... well, you'll be seen in the same light Nader is. Costing us an election(s).

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

44. that would be really ironic.....

....you'd see the GOP pushing for something like a "Personal Political Privacy Act", using the saying "Who You Contribute to Should Be Your Buisness".

Then publicize a few cases of retaliation for contributing to, say, liberal Democrats.


Then the fearfull Democrats would jump on the bandwagon to support it, and we'd be back to Black Box Political Financing.

[Yemp4734]

46. Exactly

It could very well happen this way.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

47. BTW, Welcome to DU.

I see you dont have too many posts (well, neither do I...LOL).

Its been really wild reading these threads.

I guess alot of this "public record" stuff is old news as I've been following politics for some time, and used to be a precinct worker, so maybe Im a bit taken aback by the reaction here, sort of assuming folks where in the know.

Given the reaction here youd think folks have been exposed as online porn fans or something.

[havocmom]

49. Bravo, Yemp4734! The neocons work hard to get us to rescind many reforms

They work to bankrupt the Treasury so we have to gut government services. They support outsourcing, figuring workers here will get fearful enough, or hungry enough, to accept token wages and insist Congress gut environmental and worker protection laws. They send our military overseas and hold them hostage so we will demand Congress pass appropriations to be paid to greedy corporations with no bid contracts to feed troops.

They manipulate us into doing their bidding for them. They sure as hell would love to see us scream to shelter the privacy of those who contribute to political campaigns. We would be doing them a huge favor and slitting our own throats.

Welcome to DU, Yemp4734.:toast: I shall look forward to your participation here on the boards.

[mmonk]

57. fundrace only shows my initial donation

and none for my other (which is for a different candidate). In fact, I didn't see contributors for my second candidate listed with any in the neighborhood either though I suspect some somewhere donated. It must not be fully up to date.

[Logansquare]

58. So, this isn't motivating even one of you to give more?

Or, should I say, actually start giving?
I sure as hell am motivated, especially after seeing how many right wingers with $2000 to burn live in my zip code. There are fewer of them, but they are giving more. To those of you who have donated to a Democratic candidate, thank you! Also, please keep giving--even if it's just, as was said by Jesus, a "widow's mite." To those of you who haven't, and are now wallowing in paranoia--well, enjoy the coming police state. Its going to be a lot worse than an entry in Fundrace.

[Nobody]

61. Time is money

And while being unemployed back in 2002, I donated hundreds of hours of my time. Assuming $5 per hour (I'm rounding mimimum wage down) I've already given over $1000 worth of my time.

I may not have the disposable income, or the interest in having my name and address out there for all the potential stalkers to see, but I am proud to donate my time as a volunteer.

I have absolutely no problem with name and job title and employer. It's the home address disclosure I do have an issue with.

We are an increasingly polarized society. Look how many reports of people getting their cars keyed over a bumper sticker there have been.

Furthermore, why on earth is this site publishing info about people with less than $250 to a single candidate? The FEC doesn't need specifics about you until you have given over $250.

[Dover]

60. Why have anonymity at the voting booth at all, then?

The proverbial "curtain" seems to no longer protect voters' privacy.