Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Watch Your Neighbors Political Contribution 105

Posted by Hemos from the the-joy-of-open-records dept.
arrianus writes "Fundrace.org gives a fascinating perspective on campaign donation laws. You can look up people's political donations to the current presidential campaign based on name (type in a friend's name, and see how much money he donated, and to whom), location (see which of your neighbors are politically active). I leave the privacy implications of this as an exercise to the reader. How long before this is tied into marketing databases? What happens if an employer were to prescreen employees based on political leanings?" Well, it is illegal to screen like that - and frankly, for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open. Still, disturbing to see.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Watch Your Neighbors Political Contribution More

Watch Your Neighbors Political Contribution

Comments Filter:

  • Legality (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:27AM (#8700376) Homepage
    Well, it is illegal to screen like that
    Well, yeah, it's illegal to screen based on age, gender, race, and so forth but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Not too much one can do about it either. :-(

    • Re:Legality??? (Score:4, Informative)

      by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:21AM (#8700669) Homepage
      Why would it be illegal to discriminate on the basis of politics? I don't see anything on this at the FEC site.

      The government can't discriminate on politics (first amendment) but the rest of us can. Age, gender, race, disability, and so on are protected by specific civil rights law; they are "protected classes." you can, however, refuse to rent to or employ someone on sexual orientation (most places), height, odor.... and if you want to hire only republicans for, say, the RNC, go ahead.

      however, it regrettable that disclosure might chill some contributions. but with public financing of campaigns we could get around all of this nonsense and candidate groveling for contributions.

      • Re:Legality??? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by foooo ( 634898 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @03:12AM (#8701010) Journal
        Here! Here!

        Discrimination has become such a negative term these days. I consider myself a person with discriminating tastes. I discriminate when I choose my friends, when I choose the neighborhood where I want to live... the muffin that I want to eat (I prefer poppyseed) etc...

        Discrimination is part of our constitutional right to Freedom of Association. I for one am in favor of the government limiting discrimination in it's own actions. But people are promised the right to associated with anyone who would associate with them willingly and they are also free to *not* associated with anyone.

        As horrible as it is to discriminate based on things such as race, color, sex, politics, religion etc.

        The right to discriminate is just as much a right as the right to free speech.

        Before you flame... consider this.. most people think that there is a constitutional right to seperation of church and state**. I would suggest this line of reasoning

        1) There is a right to freedom of association
        2) Many people want to protected minorities (etc)for moral reasons

        Now ponder this... how different is this from forcing a religion on someone? Forcing morals on someone... but not only that.. forcing morals that the constitution specifically says can not be enforced via freedom of association.

        **There isn't any thing saying that there is seperation of church and state in the constitution, read the fine print... the framers just didn't want something like the Church of England. The specific wording was "...shall not establish..." What do you think establishing religion entails?? The line is fuzzy... but maybe today's supreme court has taken it a little to far.

        At any rate... I would probably not discriminate based on someone's politics... I get along fine with the "Psycho Seattle Liberals" that I work with everyday... we have fun poking at each other's politics. But I would support the right of someone to choose who works for them.

        Goodness knows I get flamed all up and down this joint for espousing conservative views... but that's what I get for having a big mouth. =)

        We need to get good Civics classes back into our schools... I feel like I have to explain the entire US Constitution in every political discussion I have ever. Even if there are dissagreements... it's good to have some sort of knowledge of history and how our government was founded.

        =)

        ~foooo
        • Here! Here!

          The correct form would be "Hear, hear!"

        • At any rate... I would probably not discriminate based on someone's politics... I get along fine with the "Psycho Seattle Liberals" that I work with everyday... we have fun poking at each other's politics. But I would support the right of someone to choose who works for them.

          Getting 'flamed' for your political views is a healthy part of free speech. Getting fired (or not hired) for them is censorship and a violation of your civil rights.

          I can, however, understand it for someone working for the DNC, bu

          • While censorship can be used loosely to mean any type of chilling effect from any source... most would agree that your right to free speech applies only to censorship from the government.

            Censorship from individuals or corporations is just one of the many consequences the world dishes out at you. Without these concequences society wouldn't work in the way we expect it to. No consequences usually means you will have to deal with "trolls" or "flamebait" all of the time. For (non-scientific) evidence look at t
      • It's illegal beacuse personal beliefs are protected in general, not just in specification to religious personal beliefs. Hell, the way some people refuse to deviate from their favored party, and would probably vote for Satan himself if he ran under their platform, politics might as well be classified as a religion.

  • Absolutely stupid. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What happens if an employer were to prescreen employees based on political leanings?" Well, it is illegal to screen like that

    Since when has anything being illegal stopped people from doing it? This system will be abused - even if nobody ever gets caught abusing it.

    and frankly, for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open. Still, disturbing to see.

    Why? Could somebody please give me a solid reason as to why this is of benefit to a democracy? (though, of course, the US is a fede
    • If I want to contribute to the Satanist party

      How exactly is it decided which charities are political and which aren't? This search is just for presidential donations, it appears. But what if you donated to Bush because you want to support education--his?

      Alex.

    • Re:Absolutely stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Stone Rhino ( 532581 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [ekrapm]> on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:49AM (#8700511) Homepage Journal
      I saw this page a few days ago, and I thought about the relative merits of anonymity vs. disclosure in political contributions. Anonymity is only valid if it's airtight -- and anonymity means that no one knows who you gave money to.

      You may not want people to know you gave $50 to the socialists last year, but you may also not want people to know that you gave $50,000 to George W. Bush.

      These forms are a matter of public record: public candidates recieve the money, campaigns for public office are being held, public decisions are being made about who is being elected, and the public ought to be able to know who is financing a candidate's campaign. It is more important to know that someone was paid then to hide that you paid.

      If a person cannot give money freely and openly to their candidate, our system is much more deeply flawed than anything that anonymous donations can fix.
      • I would somewhat rather have a system where politicians themselves -could- not know who had contributed. They're welcome to have their own ideas, campaigns, agendas -- but it'd be nice if they stuck to that, rather than changing course based on who's willing to give money under given conditions. People/corps could contribute based on what the candidate already has in mind.

        At least it would make slightly clearer any cases of "X did Y because (s)he received Z contributions from corporations benefitting from
        • Except that there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with a corporation giving a candidate money. It's the candidate's responsibility to behave correctly. If the candidate is not acting in the public interest, kick them out of office and don't elect them again. Don't shake your finger at whoever gave them money.
          • Yes, there is something wrong with this.

            It's called the appearance of impropriety and a possible lack of objectivity. Or, in simpler English: Allowing unlimited donations from a corporation (or even an individual with lots of money) could give the appearance of a government run by bribery.

            And therein lies the problem. See, everybody knows that saying to a politician "I'll give you $5,000,000 if you vote against law X" is illegal. But, somebody who wants to influence the law that way is probably smart enou
            • Make sense?

              No, it doesn't make sense because in the end the guilty party will still be the politician for being affected by a bribe, not the corporation donating money. Your argument seems to ignore that. Campaign donations are just another way of petitioning your government. In the end, corporations are legal fictions that mean nothing; the only thing with meaning are the executive officers and the employees.

              If people are truly worried their elected official is taking bribes then they should remove him

          • Except that there shouldn't be anything inherently wrong with a corporation giving a candidate money. It's the candidate's responsibility to behave correctly.

            I see. Do you think it should be illegal for corporations to bribe law enforcement or courtroom judges? After all, it's also their responsibility to behave correctly.

            If it's not okay to bribe the people who enforce or judge the laws, why is it okay to bribe the people who write the laws?

    • Re:Absolutely stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bjackrian ( 764826 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:51AM (#8700525) Homepage
      Why? Could somebody please give me a solid reason as to why this is of benefit to a democracy? (though, of course, the US is a federal republic - not a pure democracy).

      It helps us to know what is motivating our elected officials to do things. For example, on the PIRATE Act threat [slashdot.org], it's been pointed out that Senator Hatch received a lot of money from the entertainment industry. This might suggest to some of his voters that he cares more about the people he gets money from than about the voters he's supposed to represent. You can argue whether it is undue influence, but the more information that voters have to make that decision, the better their decisions are likely to be.

      Another example. Suppose, hypothetically, that Bush had received contributions from every president of an oil company (as well as their spouses, children, etc.). Some voters (myself included) might use that information in deciding whether or not to vote for him. I might decide that those contributions are what motivated his decision to invade Iraq and not any real fear of Iraq as a threat. If that's the case, I might decide to vote for someone else who I feel is more willing to represent my intersts, rather than the interests of rich people. Again, not everyone would have the same interpretation as I would, but I think it's important that voters be given the information so that they can decide.

      After all, our federal republic is all about giving people as much information as possible and allowing them to elected representatives based on that information.

      • This is mostly an issue with large donations. For BC provincial elections donations of less than $50 can be anonymous. Donations of over $50 must be recorded (can't remember what happens to a $50 donation). Donations of between $50 and some higher threshold are recorded but not published. Donations over the second threshold are explicitly published. This allows people to make small, personal, donations anonymously but records who a politician is likely to be especially behoven to.

    • The $199 solution to mandatory disclosure (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tau Zero ( 75868 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:08AM (#8700602) Journal
      The threshold for FEC reporting is $200 to a campaign. The obvious solution presents itself: donate $199, and persuade all your friends and relatives who share your leanings to do likewise. Voila, nobody is obliged to say that you donated, and a campaign which is receiving lots of money from people who obviously don't want to be named isn't likely to go beyond the law's requirements.

      For extra credit you can send $100 money orders (purchased with cash) in the names of people you look up in the phone book... or in Chicago, the obituaries.

  • This is great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NickV ( 30252 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:33AM (#8700408)
    It's alot like www.opensecrets.org [opensecrets.org]. I really think that anything involving the government should be as open as possibile, including figuring out where politicians get their money. I want to know if there is any possibility for a candidate to be influenced by his big donors (cough, cough, bush).

    This is a GOOD thing. We should know who's donating to what political party, if only to keep people (and money) in check with power.
    • Unless you're someone with a good reason to keep your address out of the public domain!

      When I was in college, I was stalked by someone I worked with. He threatened to kill me. I didn't take him too seriously until I found out he'd raped an undergrad he worked with in a previous position (all handled within the university, so no criminal charges, of course... just shunt him off to the next unsuspecting lab). When I moved away to grad school, he tracked me down and harrassed me in my new home. I was very, ve
  • Why is it when money's involved (banks, political donation databases, etc.), they have no trouble keeping track of it. But when it comes to e-voting, everything goes to hell?

    Ah well. At least now we've got some way of figuring out who's supporting who.

    Alex.

  • Not everything should be private (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Toxygen ( 738180 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @12:38AM (#8700439) Journal
    Just because something CAN be private, doesn't mean it should be, or that you should should get uptight about someone offering it to the public or individuals. I don't see what the problem is with making this kind of information public. It's definitely wrong to discriminate against someone based on this information, but wanting it to be unavailable sounds like curing a disease by killing the patient.

    The way I see it, if you're making donations or otherwise supporting your political party or viewpoints, you shouldn't be afraid to stand up tall and say it loud and proud. What exactly would you be supporting that you don't want other people to know about? If you don't want other people to know where you stand on certain issues, political or not, maybe you should think about why you're supporting those issues or groups in the first place. If you're hiding any of your beliefs or opinions because you're worried about offending or alienating someone, then you just simply don't believe in them strongly enough to justify raising a fuss when those beliefs or opinions are trampled on. In other words, I think people should speak up BEFORE their silence creates the problem.
    • If you're hiding any of your beliefs or opinions because you're worried about offending or alienating someone, then you just simply don't believe in them strongly enough to justify raising a fuss when those beliefs or opinions are trampled on.

      Spoken like a true member of the white male heterosexual christian majority...

      Why should I have to defend my beliefs to you or anyone else? Why can't my political beliefs be simply none of your business? Like it or not, when you hold political/religious/sexual/et

      • Easy for you to say. As a bisexual atheist pro-life anarchist-leaning libertarian, my political beliefs go against the grain of nearly everyone I talk to. But you know what? I'm not hiding those beliefs. If I was going to contribute to someone, I wouldn't worry about hiding it. I'm proud of my beliefs and I'm willing to state them publicly and fight for them, because I care about them. Democracy happens when ideas are shared and argued. If you don't want to participate in that, that's fine with me. But I
      • >>Why should I have to defend my beliefs to you or anyone else? Why can't my political beliefs be simply none of your business?

        Excuse me, but political beliefs are different from religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. The latter are properly private and need concern no-one else. But your political beliefs, if enacted, will result in changes to policies and laws that will affect EVERYONE. So long as you don't act on them, then OK, they too are private. But if you're giving money to a campaign to
        • Excuse me, but political beliefs are different from religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. The latter are properly private and need concern no-one else. But your political beliefs, if enacted, will result in changes to policies and laws that will affect EVERYONE. So long as you don't act on them, then OK, they too are private. But if you're giving money to a campaign to bring about those changes, then yes, you should be ready to defend those views in public.

          And what about my vote itself? That's the m

      • I'm talking about the CHOICE that EVERYONE makes when they speak up about the things that are important to them. I didn't choose to be a white male heterosexual any more than you chose to be a gay black woman, but if you're not making yourself heard about your choice of beliefs because you're worried people will treat you differently, then that's just plain cowardice and that's why you're still being treated like you're a minority.

        When you hold views that are different from ANYONE'S they will look at you
        • I'm talking about the CHOICE that EVERYONE makes when they speak up about the things that are important to them.

          And with that should come the choice of when to speak up, and when not to. There is a time and place for everything, but not all times and places are suitable for all things. By revealing who I financially supported, you take this choice away.

          if you're not making yourself heard about your choice of beliefs because you're worried people will treat you differently, then that's just plain cowa

    • Just because something CAN be private, doesn't mean it should be, or that you should should get uptight about someone offering it to the public or individuals.

      Well, what if you wanted to search down the Address to Barbara Bush? She happens to be at 10000 Memorial Drive Houston, TX 77024. There is an Albert and Elizabeth Gore making contributions to Dean out at 312 Lynnwood Blvd Nashville, TN 37205. Perot only leaves his P.O. Box, but he lives out in Plano, TX, and is supporting Bush.

      The by-city inform
    • You should look into the history of the secret ballot if you think political privacy [wikipedia.org] is unimportant or a bad idea.

      I don't see what the problem is with making this kind of information public.
  • Hm. I don't seem to see myself listed, and I contributed a lot to the Dean campaign. *shrug*

    I wonder what's up there.
    • Agreed. I can't seem to find any of the people I know listed, yet I know that some have donated... some have even campaigned for these people. Both I and my girlfriend have donated to Dean, yet neither of us show up in the database. There doesn't seem to be a spot for us on the map of our city.

      Can anyone verify that they are listed and this isn't a hoax?

      • If you donated less than $100 then your name and address doesn't have to be listed by law.
        • I've donated more than $100 to both Kerry and Dean and didn't show up. However a friend who lives a block away did show up - so the site isn't a hoax, just buggy.
    • Do contributions made to Kerry or Bush right now count as contributions made to the primary election or the presidential election?

      According to the FEC document [fec.gov] I read individuals can contribute up to $2000 per candidate per election. But since Kerry (and Bush, I guess) hasn't officially been picked as his party's nominee, can I give him $2k now, wait until this summer, then give him another $2k?

  • Let's see... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    William H. Gates
    CEO
    Microsoft Corp.
    1 Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052

    George W. Bush $2,000
    Can't say I'm surprised...

  • hmmm (Score:1)

    by dave1g ( 680091 )
    On the one hand I like the idea of knowing the money trail for politicians. On the otherhand I could see this being used to ostracise people...in certain communities.

    I think a balance would be to set a limit on who gets listed, maybe donations more than 250 bucks or something. im assuming it costs atleast that to get some sway.

    • circumvention of $2,000 limits. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Problem with this mechanism is that it subverts the $2000 maximum. See I'm a low-level manager for company Y, my manager mentions to me about how much he likes Mr. Bush and in the same sentance hints that reviews are coming up soon and that mid-year end bonuses could be very generous. I know I'm giving to Bush, and I know most of my fellow line supervisors are also giving the 2K maximum. That's errm, about 1000*2000=2M from our company alone... and we are not even Fortune 100.
      • This really does happen. I worked on an investigation of insurance fraud(Bill Griffin at Riscorp). The CEO was convicted and incarerated based on illegal campaign donations-basically giving bonuses in _exactly_ the amount of campaign donations after taxes. Now, in that case, the donations were to state candidates that handled Riscorp's regulatory environment.
        • "Riscorp was the Sarasota insurance company whose principals were indicted and convicted for election fraud for illegally donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates. Riscorp asked its employees to make donations, and then reimbursed them". From an article [federalobserver.com] about Ms. Harris-the sleezebag that helped appoint George Bush president-and had earlier in her career helped out Riscorp's management.

          I do suggest you seek legal counsel. Your management may have made you an accomplice to a felony. At the s

  • The editor and owner [fundrace.org] of our local paper [amnews.com] donated a total of 1750 over 3 donations.

    This answers a lot of questions that were raised by commentary in her smart ass op/ed pieces.

    Cunt
  • Your name and address used to be listed for donations over $250, but now it is for donations over $100(maybe just Florida?). I suspect the politicians lowered it to give themselves more addresses to spam/junk mail asking for donations for the next race.
    • I'm not too sure about that. One person near my hometown (in AL) gave Al Sharpton $10 and they showed up in this database only once (not quiet $100, much less $200 or whatever the law is), with that donation. Wonder what gives there?
      • I'm thinking that this list may only apply to people who asked for a reciept. If you got a reciept (and donated more than a week or two ago), please raise your hand.
        er......

        ((it may also be that donating to failed nomination campaigns may be treated differently than donating generally to a full candidate or party)).

  • my favorite so far (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <psxNO@SPAMfimble.com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @01:32AM (#8700707) Homepage
    Connie E. Ballmer
    Homemaker
    N/A
    George W. Bush - $2,000
    3832 Hunts Point Road
    Bellevue, WA 98004

    Steven A. Ballmer
    C.E.O.
    Microsoft
    George W. Bush - $2,000
    3832 Hunts Point Road
    Bellevue, WA 98004

    Atleast Gates was smart enough to not give money legally, he probably gave massive amounts under the table....
    • I stand corrected - William Gates did donate $2k to Bush as well. I spelled William wrong the first time :)

    • Re:my favorite so far (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @03:26AM (#8701065)
      It probably didn't happen under the table. There is an enormous loophole that bypasses the restrictions entirely. The basic idea is that you can spend money which just happens to support a candidate, and as long as it never actually passes through that candidate's hands, it's not subject to campaign finance restrictions. George Soros, the billionaire Democrat, is the most well-known guy exploiting this loophole, but I doubt he's the only one. (Soros is the source of all those controversial ads suggesting Bush is worse than Hitler, and so on.)

      The problem, of course, is that this new loophole results in donations being even harder to trace than they were before campaign finance reform. I think some politicians (like McCain) would actually try to get the bill extended through the courts to close this loophole, but he's justifiably afraid that the Supreme Court will squash the whole thing for being a restriction of free speech.

      • Why is it a loophole? Are you saying I can't spend money to support the viewpoints of the Candidate of my choice? Isn't that what freeedom of Speeach is all about?

        I understand the need for campaign finance reform, but there is no way you should tell an individual how much she/he can spend on a viewpoint, any viewpoint.
        • From dictionary.com:

          A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.

          Whether you agree with the bill or not, whether you agree with its motivations or not, clearly it is designed expressly to prevent the sort of thing it turns out, by accident, to allow. That's why it's a loophole.

          Don't read any political meaning into my words. I genuinely don't know how I feel on this issue.

  • I wonder if those orgs can use commercials to say who dontated to who. Obviously it could happen but how come last election we didn't see any of it. Just because this particular website wasn't around in 2002, who voted in 2003 lousy odd year, doesn't mean the information was hard to find or wouldn't benefit those. When we do our yearly donation to those, well maybe not moveon, we should ask if a small part could be used for those purposes.
  • http://www.fundrace.org/images/moneymaps.png

    Seems as the reds are winning, I hope not though...On the other side both parties are reflections of each other so it make little to no diffirent which of them actually wins. Some Democracy/republic huh?
  • One of the basic principles of democracies is that people should be able to cast their vote in secret. Of course, they can still cast their vote in secret, but now they cannot both support their candidate and vote for him in secret.

    I think this system is flawed.

    • The problem isn't with donations per se, it's with the fact that large donations can lead to a (perception of) politicians being behoven to their donors (( "I gave your campaign $20,000, so why aren't you voting for my toxic waste plant?" )). People need to be aware of things like this. For smaller donations, anonymity is fine (IMHO).

      Generally, it's not a question of whether the politicians know who the top donors to their campaign are.. It's only a question of whether the public knows.

  • I will boycott a business if I suspect it makes donations to the GOP (Domino's, for example). This makes it eaiser to target my boycotts.

    thx,
    Eric
  • I could see Clear Channel screening their employees to determinine their political loyalties.

    Clear Channel is a well known supporter of the Republicans and G.W. Bush... and they have fired DJs in the past who spoke out against the administration, organized pro-war rallies, and most recently dropped Howard Stern after he began to speak out against Bush.

    If a tool exists, it will be used... both for good or for ill.

    • Bullshit.

      "Lemee see your tits"
      "Lemeee see your pussy"
      "I wanna fuck you" .....et cetera...

      That's why Ol' stern was taken off clear channel.
      • I've read the transcript of what Stern said that supposedly led to his censure, and it was relatively inoffensive compared to some of the stuff I hear coming out of some politician's mouths on C-SPAN.
      • Stern's antics have to significantly changed in the last 10-20 years. So unless the definition of obscene/indecent changed in the past month (it didn't, only the penalties for volating existings rules changed) it would seem like we was booted off the air for something else
    • Ugh. Such intellectual laziness...typical of the Left, though. Look, Stern was dropped from a few stations because he specializes in obscene material, not for his political views.

      Don Imus offers no (well, almost no) obscene material, but regularly has guests who oppose Bush. So why hasn't he been dropped? And isn't it odd that 'Air America' is just getting started just now, amongst all this right-wing censorship?

      You want to say Stern is a victim of the Right? Good Lord, just ask yourself: Would you l
      • Imus' audience is mainly middle of the road left wingers... and he does quite a lot of talking about politics so he's preaching to choir. Stern's listenership is more right wing... and Stern doesn't usually involve himself in politics in more than a superficial way. Stern can "flip" votes. Imus can't.

        Imagine how long Rush would stay on the air if he turned on the Republican party.

        Clear Channel seemed to have no problems with what Stern was saying when he was a Bush backer, as he was until he came back fro

        • Well, interesting. But you miss a couple of points:

          Come on, friend: Stern was dropped in the midst of the FCC feeding frenzy that followed Janet Jackson's little halftime show. Janet's stunt, malfunction, whatever, was a great opportunity for politicians to puff up and rant about how "shocked, shocked" they were that such things are broadcast.

          To your point - I agree with you - Clear Channel (amongst others) suddenly decided they should be concerned with obscenity being broadcast by their employees. Th
    • Clear Channel ... most recently dropped Howard Stern after he began to speak out against Bush.

      I call bullsh*t. Stern's a pottymouth of long standing, and Clear Channel no doubt didn't want to be on the wrong end of a massive fine from the FCC after another of his bouts of verbal diarrhea.

  • First off, this information is flawed because it is incomplete. As one poster above mentioned, his donation went unrecorded (according to this website). You should probably take it with about as much salt as your average slashdot poll--it obviously mentions some donators, but not others. So long as this is so, it cannot be trusted to give a clear picture.

    Second, when looking at the national map, remember the following:

    1) This is by area only, and does not take into account population density.
    2

  • Stop buying your politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spudley ( 171066 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @03:40AM (#8701113) Homepage Journal
    for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open.

    For a really healthy democracy, you'd need to get rid of political donations completely.

    • Re:Stop buying your politicians. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This seems to be the big problem (as I see it) with the US political system. You have big corporations over there, whose only concern is the almighty dollar, and they won't hesitate to bankroll politicians. In the US at least, this seems a good reason to keep such donations public domain. In Australia, corporations aren't quite as aggressive and I think there are more safeguards to prevent them from having vested interests other than thant of their electorate. Im not saying that Australia should not have a
    • Not sure about that, but I would like to see a cap on donations. Each party/candidate should have an upper limit imposed to even things out. But then I suppose this would require a non-partisan body to oversee funding, something I don't believe exists (at least according to the popular media) in the US.

      Also, there should be an upper limit on the amount allowed to be spent on political advertising spots.

      In the UK, each of the major parties is allowed a certain number of "Party Political Statements" in

  • It's kinda depressing to see how much money goes into this. Don't people have anything better to spend their money on? Or couldn't they just donate it to their local school system, scout troop, or charity?

    Before anyone says that campaigns cost money, keep in mind that all funds donated to the loser were completely wasted. In a sense, the Dems have a tough start, since their money is spread over multiple candidates. "Oops."

    • Or couldn't they just donate it to their local school system, scout troop, or charity?

      Donating to your local scout troop won't get your toxic waste plant passed (unless the scout troop is being run by the mayor's wife).

  • "Well, it is illegal to screen like that - and frankly, for a healthy democracy, it's probably better to have this in the open. Still, disturbing to see."

    not to forget, everybody's votes should be transparent, there should be no secrecy in the ballot process. Its probably better to have that in the open.
  • I, for one, find this as bit disturbing. Although I do think it is neccesary to have a verifiable donation record in the public domain, having one's name and address attached and displayed on the internet is a step too far. With all of the privacy that voting booths provide, why shouldn't people's donations be subject to the same rules? Where people put their money ought to be more confidential than where they put their vote as one directly leads you to the other.

  • You can screen based on political leaning (Score:3, Informative)

    by notyou2 ( 202944 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @02:21PM (#8705455) Homepage
    "What happens if an employer were to prescreen employees based on political leanings?" Well, it is illegal to screen like that.

    That's not illegal in most states, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's not illegal in any state. You can discriminate or fire someone (in most states) for any reason that isn't EXPLICITLY outlawed. And at the federal level, the only prohibited reasons are race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age over 40, and disability. [eeoc.gov]

  • The rural areas are mostly republican. Is this how they get the name rednecks?
  • The Microsoft results alone are quite revealing (I couln't find anything recognisable for Oracle or Sun):

    Connie E. Ballmer, Homemaker George W. Bush $2,000
    Steven A. Ballmer, C.E.O. Microsoft George W. Bush $2,000
    Michael J Bernard, Tax Attorney Microsoft Corporation George W. Bush $2,000
    William H. Gates, CEO Microsoft Corp. George W. Bush $2,000
    George H Zinn, Fianance Microsoft George W. Bush $2,000
    William A. Spencer, Marketing Manager Microsoft Corporation George W. Bush $2,000
    George A. Spix, Enginee

  • On the one hand, I can understand the privacy implications. On the other hand, full and open disclosure of who gives how much to what politician is universally regarded to be a Good Thing. Anyone who doubts this needs only to look at situations like Orrin Hatch sponsoring the monstrosities he is while receiving $14,750 from Viacom [opensecrets.org].

  • ...and frankly, for a healthy democracy...
    That should be "republic [wikipedia.org]." Carry on.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Close