The 2008 Presidential Campaign: Part Three

[vison]

The law is similar in Canada. If you donate less than $200, you don't need to be identified.

Works for me. Think of the bureaucracy required if the information had to be made public! My god, a whole other department of government would be needed. It would cost millions, either for the campaign itself or the public. Why?

Because Mr. Obama has energized hundreds of thousands of people to donate small sums to his campaign, suddenly someone feels threatened, is that it? Otherwise, what's the problem? I have read that some people donate as little as $2 a month, that's all they can afford. Why is this wrong? What benefit does "society" get from knowing who these people are?

Large donors don't necessarily "want something", anyway. Are we to believe or suspect that everyone who donates to a political party is looking for favours? I am not so cynical. I think even very rich people can be idealistic, can want to do their part in public service.

I truly doubt that any "secret" donor is going to go to all the trouble of arranging small, anonymous donations in order to do - what? Make demands?

A tempest in a tea pot, IMHO. I find this constant fretting about imaginary issues very annoying, myself. There are enough real problems to contend with.

[Primula Baggins]

How is YES avoiding your question?
YES
Y
E
S.

So just to be clear, you think campaign contributions should be secret?

This essentially makes them unlimited as well. Soros could give Obama a billion dollars to try and win the presidency.

You like to mention how you taught HS for 34 years. Did you never cover the problems such a structure has and would cause?

Hal, under the current system all of those donations are reported to the FEC. Every nickel. Donations under $200 are "secret" only in the sense that they are not published by the FEC and don't have to be published by the campaigns.

All those donations have been reported in accordance with law. They are not "secret," and nobody could give a quadrillion dollars "under the table."

[halplm]

How is YES avoiding your question?
YES
Y
E
S.

So just to be clear, you think campaign contributions should be secret?

This essentially makes them unlimited as well. Soros could give Obama a billion dollars to try and win the presidency.

You like to mention how you taught HS for 34 years. Did you never cover the problems such a structure has and would cause?

Hal, under the current system all of those donations are reported to the FEC. Every nickel. Donations under $200 are "secret" only in the sense that they are not published by the FEC and don't have to be published by the campaigns.

All those donations have been reported in accordance with law. They are not "secret," and nobody could give a quadrillion dollars "under the table."

Yes, they could, if they commited fraud.

And if you contribute $100 twenty-four times, the FEC will never look, and you've broken the law.

And we come full circle to the original question. They don't HAVE to be published, but if there's no wrongdoing, and people are accusing you of said wrongdoing, isn't the simplest way to dismiss those accusations to publish the records that do exist?

Lets assume there's not widespread fraud, or illegal contributions. We now have a whole bunch of Republicans screaming that there must be, and if Obama released the records, there would be proof!

What do you think would happen if Obama released the records? The republicans would be done. Finished. He could release the records, they could spend the last two weeks pouring over them and find nothing. Obama walks away with a landslide victory.

So why not release them? It costs him nothing. Unless there's something to hide.

[Maria]

All this talk of money has me thinking.... maybe my anti-Palinism should extend so far as to send some money to Obama.

[River]

[
Yes, they could, if they commited fraud.

And if you contribute $100 twenty-four times, the FEC will never look, and you've broken the law.

Are you sure about that? Because if the Obama campaign is handing their records over to the FEC, they probably would catch it because the Obama campaign knows who's been donating what how often. I know this because I have donated twice and the second time the guy said something to the effect "Same as last time? Thank you ma'am."

Of course if someone manages to contribute over their limit under different names from different cities, that's different, but that's fraud perpetrated by the donor, not the campaign.

I really don't want my name, city, and amount donated released to the public on a list. I really really don't.

[sauronsfinger]

from Hal

Yes, they could, if they commited fraud.

It has already been explained to you that the government gets a list of all who gave.

What right do you have to attempt to impose your own personal standard over that of a law passed by the duly elected representatives of the American people?

[Padme]

I don't know as a private citizen, if I donate to any campaign why should it be public information? Doesn't it violate my right to privacy?

[halplm]

There's no such thing as a right to privacy.

And SF, It's my right, and some would say my duty, to question the laws of the country that lead to fraud and corruption of government, simply as a citizen.

What I find so interesting is that so many of you think it doesn't matter.

I would ask quite simply, if the situation were reversed, and Obama had released all his information, and McCain was keepign $200 million in donations secret... would you think that was ok?

[sauronsfinger]

You have shown no evidence of any fraud.
You have not proven any fraud.

You are attempting to create a problem where there is no evidence of any problem.

The Congress as well as the Supreme Court differs with you about a right to privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

[Ellienor]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... ivacy.html

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Couldn't let that one go by. It's interesting when a non-lawyer seems to know more than constitutional scholars.

Hal, if the situation was reversed, I would want McCain to release the records. I already think that Obama should, too. But there's a certain expectation when people who donate, they think, anonymously, suddenly have their names, workplaces, and amount they donated made public when their previous expectation was that it would not. I think we need to pause and consider these ramifications.

[Maria]

There's no such thing as a right to privacy.

I am flabbergasted.

I would not want my name and address released to the general public as an Obama supporter. It could open the door to threats and intimidation by local rednecks.

[halplm]

You have shown no evidence of any fraud.
You have not proven any fraud.

You are attempting to create a problem where there is no evidence of any problem.

The evidence is obvious. Fraudulent or simply illegal contributions were not only possible, but probable given the Obama fundrising methods.

People on this board were collaborating to make illegal contributions without even knowing it was illegal.

Obama refuses to release the list of contributors to show they were not fraudulent or illegal.

QED. There's fraud. And in this case, it IS the campaign, because they know the contributions were wrong and did nothing to stop them or return the money.

It's circumstantial evidence, but it's also easily corroborated or refuted by the ACTUAL evidence that we know exists.

It's not a difficult situation to fix. Why wouldn't you want Obama to fix it? I mean, even if you can make the argument that he doesn't HAVE to fix it, why wouldn't you want everything to be honest and above-board? What if Obama WAS commiting a mass fraud? Wouldn't you want to know that?

[Padme]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The probable cause would be?

[Primula Baggins]

Hal, both the campaign and the FEC keep track of multiple contributions by the same donor. The $2300 maximum donation per person applies for the entire campaign; you can't get around it by donating smaller amounts more often. No one person can give more than $2300 to the same presidential candidate in the same campaign. It's called "maxing out."

You're having a tempest in a pretty small teapot here.

Edit: Hal, in the circumstance you mention, no illegal contribution was made. As soon as the parties involved knew it was illegal, they dropped the matter entirely.

Edit again:

It's circumstantial evidence, but it's also easily corroborated or refuted by the ACTUAL evidence that we know exists.

Hal, there's a reason why, in our legal system, you have to show evidence of a crime before you can accuse someone of it.

You are simply saying "a crime would be possible" and that therefore Obama should release a bunch of records he is not legally obligated to release (and that are being reported to and vetted by a government agency in complete compliance with the law).

If you walk through a store and are unobserved by the staff, it is possible for you to fill your shirt with stolen goods. Should you be expected to cheerfully consent to a full-body search every time you walk out of a store because it would have been possible for you to steal something? Don't you want everyone to know you're not a thief?

[sauronsfinger]

from hal

The evidence is obvious.

Then present that evidence of a crime here and now.

Fraudulent or simply illegal contributions were not only possible, but probable given the Obama fundrising methods.

The law punishes actions. "not only possible" ..... "but probable" are not standards which are crimes.

If you have hard and clear evidence please present it.

[halplm]

There's no such thing as a right to privacy.

I am flabbergasted.

I would not want my name and address released to the general public as an Obama supporter. It could open the door to threats and intimidation by local rednecks.

If you, or anyone else making a donation, thought they were anonymous, and that your information was protected, then the person asking you for the donation was lying to you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The probable cause would be?

you GAVE the information, how can you claim to want it protected? Unless the person you gave it to specifically stated that it would not be given away, and that has any legal bearing.

I'm curious to know if that's the case actually.

Hal, both the campaign and the FEC keep track of multiple contributions by the same donor. The $2300 maximum donation per person applies for the entire campaign; you can't get around it by donating smaller amounts more often. No one person can give more than $2300 to the same presidential candidate in the same campaign. It's called "maxing out."

You're having a tempest in a pretty small teapot here.

Really? Are you sure? How closely do they check? Do they check to see if every doner less than $200 is actually real? The FEC, that is.

$200 million is not a small teapot.

[Ellienor]

Hal, probably what makes sense is to have some agency or commission examine the records.

I think exposing people like Maria who would be afraid of the information being used against them is a significant consideration. People had the expectation that they would remain private if they were small contributors. The law recognizes expectation interests of parties, i.e., what the intent was when the contract was originally entered into.

Just releasing the records for anybody on the internet to comb through is dangerous. The law was meant for big contributors, Hal, people who contribute enough to get noticed by the candidates and their campaigns, not for the small fry.

All I've gotten from my donations to Obama is a lousy T-shirt.

[sauronsfinger]

from Ellienor

All I've gotten from my donations to Obama is a lousy T-shirt

Thats too bad. I have gotten renewed hope for a better America for all of us.

Whats that commericial tagline.

PRICELESS!

[Primula Baggins]

From Daily Kos, but pro-McCain: McCain supporters and campaign personnel argue with and finally drive off an anti-Muslim ranter at a McCain rally.

Link

Nice to see.

[halplm]

Hal, both the campaign and the FEC keep track of multiple contributions by the same donor. The $2300 maximum donation per person applies for the entire campaign; you can't get around it by donating smaller amounts more often. No one person can give more than $2300 to the same presidential candidate in the same campaign. It's called "maxing out."

You're having a tempest in a pretty small teapot here.

Edit: Hal, in the circumstance you mention, no illegal contribution was made. As soon as the parties involved knew it was illegal, they dropped the matter entirely.

Edit again:

It's circumstantial evidence, but it's also easily corroborated or refuted by the ACTUAL evidence that we know exists.

Hal, there's a reason why, in our legal system, you have to show evidence of a crime before you can accuse someone of it.

You are simply saying "a crime would be possible" and that therefore Obama should release a bunch of records he is not legally obligated to release (and that are being reported to and vetted by a government agency in complete compliance with the law).

If you walk through a store and are unobserved by the staff, it is possible for you to fill your shirt with stolen goods. Should you be expected to cheerfully consent to a full-body search every time you walk out of a store because it would have been possible for you to steal something? Don't you want everyone to know you're not a thief?

I know there was no illegal contribution made here, and did not intend to imply otherwise.

This is not me walking out of a store maybe having stolen something, this is the election for the most powerful person in the world.

smoke=fire, most of the time. Obama has done something no one has done before, raising more money than anyone before. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to make sure that was done legally.

And again, the most interesting part of all of this, is that so many of you want to make sure it stays secret. All that proves to me is that you all think there's a chance it's fraudulent as well.

Lets talk hypotheticals here... lets say Obama releases everything, and there's 1% of the $200 million that came from foreign nationals who didn't know it was wrong... that's 2 million. Obama returns the money, saying it was a mistake.

Do you think that costs him a single vote? HA. That would gain him half the remaining undecideds. Why do you want him to keep hiding the information?

Why would you want your candidate hiding anything at all?

I don't like McCain, won't vote for him, and reduced my likelihood to vote fore him every time I heard about hidden medical records or tax returns, or his wife's tax returns.

There's NO reason to hide any of that unless you have a reason. Why make a story of it????