[BRussell]

http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php

I'm sorry, but this is just too much voyeuristic fun. You can type in your zip or street address and find out who and how much money they gave to political candidates. It doesn't really seem right, but I guess it's legal.

Also try people like Baldwin, Alexander and Ritchie, Madonna. Check out Trump, Donald.

It also gives you a little bit of a feel for the types of people (it lists their occupation) and how much people give to particular candidates. All I can say is that there are a lot of "gave to: George W. Bush, $2000" and a lot of "gave to: Howard Dean, $100" out there.

You can also get maps of cities and of the US and see where the Dems and Repubs are hiding out. It's fun for the whole family.

[macvillage.net]

Cool website.

It's public info (and rightfully so), it's great to see someone make it digestable for everyday browsing.


Not suprising, but very interesting:
http://www.fundrace.org/citymap.php?city=ny

Even how the it's spread in the city is very much like how it was assumed it would.

Pretty cool.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by BRussell:
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php

Wow

[zachs]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Wow

Lookie here...not a single one under $2,000...and not a single one for Bush.

[f1000]

Originally posted by zachs:
Lookie here...not a single one under $2,000...and not a single one for Bush.

Er, I think you forgot to click "more>>"

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by f1000:
Er, I think you forgot to click "more>>"

Heh heh! So much for the power of wishful thinking!

Viewing by zip code merely lists by contribution amount and goes through each candidate.

Very interesting stuff! There's more Bush supporters among my neighbors than I expected! Sweet!

[Mithras]

People named Kerry all gave to Kerry
People named Bush are a larger group, and a mixed bag. George H.W. ponied up for his son, though Jeb has only given $1000. Someone who says his job is "Pest Controller" for the US Government (and does live in Maryland, so maybe it's true) gave 10 bucks to Al Sharpton.
All of the Sharptons donated to Bush

[osiris]

Why should this be public information? People's addresses are being posted for all to see.

Yet another reason to hate politics.

[Turias]

I understand the need for this to be open information, but I don't like the idea of my name, address, political affiliation, and relative wealth being displayed so prominantly on the internet. I'd much rather that this data be privately held by an unaffiliated political organization. Then, if you wanted to data, you would need to formally request it.

[macvillage.net]

It should be public. Otherwise it's subject to abuse.

Everyone who donates, does so with clear understanding that the information is public domain. It's literally impossible to donate to a legitimate campaign and not clearly understand that.

Everyone who donated, was willing to allow their information to be released.

So there's no question about privacy.

All this website does is make it pretty and easy to navigate (and does a really good job at that).


Anyone concerned about privacy, would not have donated. So there's no privacy debate here (or ever was).

Formally requesting data sucks. It can take months to get the data, because of everything being "hand reviewed". Look at how slow investigative reporting still is, even with FOIA.

It's public info, public right to know, and it's made accessible. The website provides a valuable service to the American people.

[f1000]

Originally posted by osiris:
Why should this be public information? People's addresses are being posted for all to see.

Yet another reason to hate politics.

I agree. What's next, voting booths without curtains?

There is simply too much personal information being revealed here. In some countries, people have been killed for their political opinions. Moreover, women with a history of being stalked have a right to donate to political campaigns without having their addresses posted on the Internet.

This is just spiteful.

[macvillage.net]

Your vote is private by law.

But campaign financing is intentionally left open, so you know who your voting for.

Politicans always are influenced by who funds them. How can you legitimately vote, without knowing who is funding them?

If anything, remove all the campaign debates, and commericals. They are worthless.

But this information is actually hard facts.

[Spliffdaddy]

lol.

Your address already a matter of public record if you own a home. Visit any Registrar of Deeds office.

Sorry to inform you guys, but you cannot remain anonymous and donate to political action comittees - heck you can't even VOTE without providing an address...which is also made 'public record'.

You can wish to remain anonymous. May as well wish for fame and fortune while you're at it.

[macvillage.net]

Yep. Spiff is right on.


Besides, how can one legitimately vote, without at least knowing who the financers are?

Sorry, but that's rather blind and random. What's more imporant? Who a president recieved money and a handshake from? Or his hairstyle?

[Turias]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Formally requesting data sucks. It can take months to get the data, because of everything being "hand reviewed". Look at how slow investigative reporting still is, even with FOIA.

Turn-around for requests don't have to take a long time...

EDIT: Rest removed since I hadn't seen what was posted directly above this one.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
lol.

Your address already a matter of public record if you own a home. Visit any Registrar of Deeds office.

Sorry to inform you guys, but you cannot remain anonymous and donate to political action comittees - heck you can't even VOTE without providing an address...which is also made 'public record'.

Doh, didn't think of that, and I've been estimating peoples' incomes for years based on their home prices. I guess it's just the easy availability of this campaign contribution information that spooked me.


On the Internet, everyone knows that you're a Republican.

[daimoni]

.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh. Barbra Streisand hedged her bets by giving $1000 to every Democrat minus Lieberman. Cheap as well as blindly partisan!

Most of the Michael Moores gave to Bush, while the only listed Limbaugh gave to Kerry.

[Turias]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh. Barbra Streisand hedged her bets by giving $1000 to every Democrat minus Lieberman. Cheap as well as blindly partisan!

Streisand didn't give any money to Kucinich... blindly partisan my ass.

That b*tch!

[zachs]

Originally posted by f1000:
Er, I think you forgot to click "more>>"

Yup, thanks..I was talking about the whole first page...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Turias:
Streisand didn't give any money to Kucinich... blindly partisan my ass.

That b*tch!

Oops. Maybe she ran out of money?

[Turias]

Heh, speaking of Streisand, it's entertaining to look up famous names.

Donald Trump gave $2000 to both Kerry and Bush (guess he can't afford to get on the bad side of either. It's business...)

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer both gave $2000 to Bush (they're aligned with all of you conservatives! )

Woz gave $2000 to Kerry and Dean (atta boy )

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Trump could probably care less who's in office, he makes deals with either side.

As for Gates and co. yeah, so disappointing when the most successful businessmen of all time turn out to be conservatives! Just goes to show, liberal's fears are correct: We conservatives DO OWN EVERYTHING.

Steve Job's wife gave to Dean (in two easy payments!) but no record from the Stevemeister himself.

It's a safe bet that all of the more wealthy folks probably gave a hell of a lot more than the 2 grand limit, through their respective corporations.

[dcmacdaddy]

Here is who gave what to whom from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, 20500 (The White House).

[Powerbook]

Whoooaa! While I see that the donations should be made "public" it's indeed the question how public "public" should be?
Also interesting - the employees of white house, various departments etc... couldn't this clearly hurt your career???

Regards
PB.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Powerbook:

Also interesting - the employees of white house, various departments etc... couldn't this clearly hurt your career???

Regards
PB.

Usually not. In most positions (even political appointments) your personal politics is your own. Lots of Democrats work for Republican administrations, and Republicans for Democrats. For example, both Bush's CIA Director and Transportation secretary are Democrats. Just because they work for the president doesn't mean they can't still participate in the political process like any other citizen. If they want to give money to Democrats, they can.

Also, once you get below the political appointments to the civil service, party politics becomes irrelevant. There are special rules for that. Those positions are hired competitively and are permanent. This was one of the reforms made during the Progressive Era. The political spoils system was seen as harmful, not to mention the fact that President McKinley was shot by an unsuccessful applicant for a civil service postion.

There used to be a statute called the Hatch Act that said federal employees couldn't donate to political parties. That was repealed in the late 1980s. Since then, the restrictions were loosened considerably. There are some rules. Federal employees can't be too closely involved in campaigns or use government property for partisan purposes. The rules are complex, but common sense. The idea is to keep personal politics and your federal job separate. But passively giving money is OK.

[Powerbook]

I had indeed Tenet in mind - I read Bush would have used the "intelligence failure" of the CIA to get rid of an old Clinton man. Probably Tenet shifted the responsibilty fast enough away...

PB.

[cpt kangarooski]

Simey--
Well, the Hatch Act is still overly restrictive, IIRC, it prohibits civil servants from running for office at all, even if it's all done with their own resources on their own time. I support not letting government resources be used for campaigning, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
I had indeed Tenet in mind - I read Bush would have used the "intelligence failure" of the CIA to get rid of an old Clinton man. Probably Tenet shifted the responsibilty fast enough away...

PB.

Could have, but didn't. Actually, there is a tradition that the CIA Director is generally not replaced by incoming Administrations. There are exceptions -- both Carter and Reagan fired the DCI and appointed their own. But that's not the rule.

[3gg3]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh heh! So much for the power of wishful thinking!

Viewing by zip code merely lists by contribution amount and goes through each candidate.

Very interesting stuff! There's more Bush supporters among my neighbors than I expected! Sweet!

Hmmmm, no return under Harddrive

[BRussell]

I just noticed that Janeane Garofalo has violated campaign finance laws.

Check it out. She's given $2050 to Howard Dean, but campaign finance laws limit contributions to $2000.

[Zimphire]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I just noticed that Janeane Garofalo has violated campaign finance laws.

Check it out. She's given $2050 to Howard Dean, but campaign finance laws limit contributions to $2000.

Heh. The Lankershim Blvd. address is her agent's management company. Maybe she thought that her agent wouldn't send the money under her name? Or maybe she simply can't add?

At any rate, she sure backed a winner!

[nam_pog]

Look up Howard Dean, he gave 2,000 to Bush, and then look up Dean Howard.