

FEC can't curb 2016 election abuse, commission chief says - anigbrowl
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?partner=EXCITE&ei=5043

======
ddingus
No wonder. There isn't any reasonable disclosure.

I'm torn on the money as speech thing. I am pretty sure more disclosure is
needed. We can know who is backing up what policy visions, and that allows for
other advocacy forms to check raw money as speech. That seems just to me. We
also can know the money is actually used for elections. As it stands right
now, people can fund raise, and with so little disclosure, they can do most
anything with the money. That doesn't seem anywhere near as just.

~~~
nickff
The problem with disclosure is that the information is often used to pressure
or shame people out of expressing their views, or supporting causes they
believe in. One must always ask whether they would like such rules to be used
by their adversaries, as this will inevitably come to pass. I imagine that
disclosure of financial support to political causes could have hurt various
interests which I support, but were initially unpopular, such as
desegregation, and extension of the franchise; I am certain that many causes
which I will support will be initially unpopular, and this has convinced me
that anonymity is important.

There are many reasons to support the opportunity for political anonymity, and
among them is also the fact that one cannot guarantee a viewpoint neutral rule
will have favorable long term outcomes, even for a specific interest group.

~~~
ddingus
That's actually how speech works.

The First Amendment isn't a shield. Any one of us may entertain any advocacy
we see fit. Others see it and may see merit, or think it's crazy, or
offensive.

The answer?

More free speech.

If we are to say money is speech, then the dynamics of speech should apply.
Anything really worth supporting is going to see some shaming, but it's also
going to see support, robust debate and competition too.

Not having disclosure creates a shield where there should not be one, and it
invites corruption and the inability to even understand what is happening in
politics.

"Initially unpopular"

There are a lot of things in place today that were initially unpopular, yet
they happened anyway. Free speech is how we got a lot of them done too. Wasn't
pretty, but it works, and it's just.

The First Amendment doesn't have a shield in it so that we can find, debate,
and get past our differences, and deal with abuses. We can't really debate
anon type dollars as speech, though it happens somewhat indirectly which isn't
really the same, nor can we really understand abuses, and even crime.

I absolutely want the same rules for my opponents. If I'm actually engaging in
speech that really does have basic merit problems, their counter speech is
going to bring that out, and the balance of all the speech is reason. I really
might be impacted by shame, and it actually might have a basis in reality too.
That is a good thing.

There are people putting lots of dollars toward causes that would be painful
to express directly today, and those causes can impact people, who really
don't know who is attempting to buy law / policy targeting them. How just is
that really? And if they are doing that, and it really does lack basic merit,
shouldn't they actually experience real shame? I think so. That's how the
First Amendment is intended to work.

"initially unpopular" might actually mean "wrong" or "unjust" and in those
scenarios, people should feel some shame. Those counter arguments would
actually have merit and we actually benefit from that dynamic.

And "initially unpopular" implies some greater goal or end state having
sufficient merit to overcome initial issues.

That's a sales job, and selling it in private basically means buying law,
getting around the interests of our peers and having our own way for having
dollars, not that it actually got sold and that we pursue that policy out of
any real consensus.

Seems to me, where we lack a meaningful debate and we allow very loud voices
to dominate without actually having to own their speech like everybody else
must, how can we really understand the merits were vetted and those greater
states or goals have the worth associated with that initially unpopular
policy?

