[Eug]

Do you donate money to political parties or their candidates? I don't. I just can't get myself to donate a single cent of my hard earned cash to any politicians.

I have donated money to certain charitable organizations that may or may not have certain political affiliations, but their political affiliations don't always have to be the same as mine, as long as I know they are doing good work.

[subego]

I've donated to (and am a card carrying member of) the ACLU. I've also helped out some local judges too (but that was more since a friend asked me to).

Never had an actual candidate grab me that hard.

[Eug]

Well, the ACLU is not a party or a candidate.

I'm referring to someone who specifically is running for office. So, if my local rep calls me asking to support their run for re-election, I always say no, even if I like the person.

However, if my local charitable organization asks me for a few bux to help me with their youth program, I may be willing to do so if I think they're doing good work.

Some may think that's a bit odd, but I have never monetarily supported my chosen party in an election.

[Doofy]

No. It only encourages them.

[subego]

Well, it wasn't covered by your "charity with a political leaning" example, and by virtue of its politics, takes great interest in who serves in office.

Seemed glancingly relevant to me.

[Captain Obvious]

Yes, to those that I know.
I've never given any money to a national campaign. And I'd rather give my savings to PETA than to the ACLU.

[paul w]

I donated this year for the first time ever.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, it wasn't covered by your "charity with a political leaning" example, and by virtue of its politics, takes great interest in who serves in office.

Seemed glancingly relevant to me.

True. To be honest, if I were in the US, I probably would never donate to the ACLU. I do agree with some of their work, but feel that they are more political than I am comfortable with.

BTW, here is a hypothetical example:

I support equal rights for gay couples, including the right to marry. (I'm in Canada, so that's pretty much par for the course anyway. I believe the polls suggest that Canadians are far more willing to support it than Americans.) Also, I am not religious.

However, I am willing to support a local church (regardless of denomination) if I think they are doing good work locally. I would not support them though if they had book burning rallies and anti-gay demonstrations, nor would I support them if they put all their support behind specific political candidates who wanted to ban gay marriage.

The ACLU is an in interesting example because they are such a political organization, even if they aren't actually directly running for office.

[andi*pandi]

^^me too.

[shinji]

Just a charity, never a political party or candidate. I would consider it if there were an electable politician who wasn't a complete scumbag.

[Ron Goodman]

First time ever, have made several donations to the Obama campaign, plus one to Planned Parenthood in Palin's name.

[Eug]

Because of my bias, I would like to see be implemented/continue to remain law:

1) Rigid limits on amounts donated to political parties per individual or company.
2) No tax deductions on political contributions.
3) No monies given to a party merely for getting a vote. (In Canada every vote for a party is worth a couple of bux from the government.)
4) No phone solicitations. There is a DoNotCall phone list here, but I'm very annoyed that political parties are exempt from this list.
5) No fax solicitations. Thankfully this doesn't exist here.
6) Other things I'll probably think of later.

[Doofy]

Of course, if there were any actual Mac users around here we could perhaps "think different" and ban political parties altogether.

Just imagine that - a choice of independent representatives who were each sworn to do what their electorate wanted them to do, not what the party whip tells 'em.

[Eug]

I wouldn't donate to independent candidates either.

I've been rather unimpressed with most independents I've come across anyway.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I wouldn't donate to independent candidates either.

Independent candidates wouldn't need donating to.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I've been rather unimpressed with most independents I've come across by the way.

That's because all the donations to parties mean those parties can afford to blind you with flashy campaigns.

Think about it. The only reason you're getting crappy independents is because those with something about them know that the most effective way in the current system is to join a party. If there was no party to join because they were all banned, the guys you're currently impressed with and voting for would be independents.

[hyteckit]

ACLU rocks!

They fight for equal treatment, equal protection, and equal rights.

Just because they fight for the right to abortion, the conservatives hate them.
Just because they fight for the right to a fair trial, the conservatives hate them.
Just because they fight for the right to freedom of religion, the conservatives hate them.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If there was no party to join because they were all banned, the guys you're currently impressed with and voting for would be independents.

Except I was rather unimpressed with ALL the candidates in my area.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

ACLU rocks!

They fight for equal treatment, equal protection, and equal rights.

Just because they fight for the right to abortion, the conservatives hate them.
Just because they fight for the right to a fair trial, the conservatives hate them.
Just because they fight for the right to freedom of religion, the conservatives hate them.

Come on, ACLU defends gun rights.

They also defend spam.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Except I was rather unimpressed with ALL the candidates in my area.

Well hey, they're all people who want to be politicians. It doesn't get much worse than that.

[Dork.]

I've donated to the EFF, but that's about as far as I've gone. No candidate for any office has energized me to the point where I'd give them money (that they would just use to annoy me with asinine mailings or phone calls.)

I've done a few of the EFF Action alerts, where they organize people to fax or E-mail their congressman on certain issues. My Congressman is a Republican, and currently engaged in a close election. After reading my Action Alert letter stating why I didn't agree with his rubber-stamp of Bush's wiretapping requests, the f*ckwad gave my address to the NRCC, so now I'm getting mailings from both the NRCC and the Democrats. (My wife is registered as a Democrat, so they have us no matter what....). Imagine how much they'd bug me if I actually gave one side or the other money?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And I'd rather give my savings to PETA than to the ACLU.

Haha, me too.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And I'd rather give my savings to PETA than to the ACLU.

That you disapprove gives me great pleasure.

I'm calling the foundation today and re-upping.

[hyteckit]

Great. I just got a letter from John McCain asking me to donate to his "Victory 2008" fund. No McCain. I think Palin has enough expensive makeup and expensive clothes.

Besides, you (McCain) accepted public funding, so no more funding for you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

They also defend spam.

As well they should.

Along with neo-Nazis and people who write manuals on how to be a pedophile without getting prosecuted.

Now I would never insist that someone agree with my view, however I will point out that if one doesn't agree, then one doesn't agree with free speech. Full stop.

[hyteckit]

I thought the CAN-SPAM act of 2003 allows to you spam as long as it's under the set requirements.

[Ghoser777]

It'd be nice if donations had to be anonymous (I have no idea how to accomplish this without using some kind of an independent third party to collect the money and then right a big check to the campaign of the candidate in question). That way it would at least "seem" less dicey when company A gives money to a candidate and then the candidate pushes for legislation which is good for company A but not necessarily in the best interests of his constitutes (the people of his/her district/state/nation). That doesn't stop lobbyists from going up to a candidate and saying "hey, we gave you a bunch of cash", but the candidates can never know for sure who really gave them money, so then they have to make decisions based on what they think is best.

That and I wish we could structure legislative votes so that representatives could vote for the parts of bills they support instead of having to support an entire bill that is full of crap. That way you wouldn't have politicians explaining why they had to vote for bill X because it contained a good thing they supported and they had to hold their nose while allowing bad things to be passed in the rest of the bill. You can structure it where certain parts are severable (don't get enough votes, then that part just dies) or necessary (doesn't get enough votes, then the whole bill dies).

[turtle777]

^^^ Oh boy, that's really cute, Ghoser.

-t

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

It'd be nice if donations had to be anonymous (I have no idea how to accomplish this without using some kind of an independent third party to collect the money and then right a big check to the campaign of the candidate in question). That way it would at least "seem" less dicey when company A gives money to a candidate and then the candidate pushes for legislation which is good for company A but not necessarily in the best interests of his constitutes (the people of his/her district/state/nation). That doesn't stop lobbyists from going up to a candidate and saying "hey, we gave you a bunch of cash", but the candidates can never know for sure who really gave them money, so then they have to make decisions based on what they think is best.

Great idea.

Originally Posted by subego 

As well they should.

Along with neo-Nazis and people who write manuals on how to be a pedophile without getting prosecuted.

Now I would never insist that someone agree with my view, however I will point out that if one doesn't agree, then one doesn't agree with free speech. Full stop.

Free speech in the definition of the ACLU. Yet it takes me effort, time and money to manage my emails to filter out and delete unsolicited spam.

In fact, I think spam is equivalent to the graffiti of the internet. No it's even worse. Much of it is not just graffiti. It's graffiti with the intent to coerce. Would you argue that graffiti should be allowed cuz it's free speech? I sure don't, because it's potentially damaging to the person who receives it, and it costs effort, time, and money to get rid of graffiti.

This is the problem I have with the ACLU. Often times, common sense is simply lost in their arguments.

[Dork.]

Anonymous donations are a horrible idea, because we'll start to see all sorts of political groups form whose only goal is to tell outright lies about candidates they don't like, and we'll never be able to find out who is behind them. If their claims get too outrageous and they get sued or shut down, their funders will just form another anonymous group and do it again. We have these groups now, but at least it's possible to figure out what the source of some of their money is, and at least connect the dots.

Plus, you never really know where those anonymous donations are coming from. Are they really coming from a voter? A corporation? A foreign agent?
What's more suspicious, a candidate who gets a large donation from a known special interest group, or a candidate who gets a large donation from An Anonynous Donor?

I think that as pervasive as money is in politics, we should go out of our way to make sure that direct contributions to candidates and to political organizations are as transparent as they can be. There are plenty of other ways to contribute speech to the political process anonymously if one needs to.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Free speech in the definition of the ACLU. Yet it takes me effort, time and money to manage my emails to filter out and delete unsolicited spam.

In fact, I think spam is equivalent to the graffiti of the internet. No it's even worse. Much of it is not just graffiti. It's graffiti with the intent to coerce. Would you argue that graffiti should be allowed cuz it's free speech? I sure don't, because it's potentially damaging to the person who receives it, and it costs effort, time, and money to get rid of graffiti.

This is the problem I have with the ACLU. Often times, common sense is simply lost in their arguments.

I wouldn't exactly call equating spam with destruction of property a "common sense" argument.

You also seem to be missing the overall point. You don't protect spam because it's cool, you protect spam because of the consequences of not protecting it.

I can probably give you a half dozen arguments, but the simplest is to ask you how does the government know whether someone is sending you spam?

Hint: it involves reading your email.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Anonymous donations are a horrible idea, because we'll start to see all sorts of political groups form whose only goal is to tell outright lies about candidates they don't like, and we'll never be able to find out who is behind them. If their claims get too outrageous and they get sued or shut down, their funders will just form another anonymous group and do it again. We have these groups now, but at least it's possible to figure out what the source of some of their money is, and at least connect the dots.

Plus, you never really know where those anonymous donations are coming from. Are they really coming from a voter? A corporation? A foreign agent?
What's more suspicious, a candidate who gets a large donation from a known special interest group, or a candidate who gets a large donation from An Anonynous Donor?

I actually did a study on this kind of thing about six months ago (due to corruption in the UK donor system). The anonymous system Ghoser suggests can be achieved with none of the worries you've just mentioned.

Of course, in my model all the lobbyists have been shot for treasonous anti-democratic activities.

[Ghoser777]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

^^^ Oh boy, that's really cute, Ghoser.

-t

What does that mean?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by subego 

I wouldn't exactly call equating spam with destruction of property a "common sense" argument.

However, I would call equating spam with cost of time, effort, and money a common sense argument. Spam has very serious consequences for businesses and individuals, but the ACLU chooses to ignore all those consequences in the interest of very dubious claims of "free speech".

You also seem to be missing the overall point. You don't protect spam because it's cool, you protect spam because of the consequences of not protecting it.

I can probably give you a half dozen arguments, but the simplest is to ask you how does the government know whether someone is sending you spam?

Hint: it involves reading your email.

Hint: It involves reading your unsolicited email that you've told them you don't want, after you've complained you've got unsolicited spam.

Basically, you're falling into the trap that the ACLU wants you to fall into. That is that the ACLU's scare tactic interpretations can be only ones possible, which is of course incorrect. Laws can be structured to deal with issues like these in an appropriate fashion. Preventing some idiot from sending me coercive or obscene emails does not infringe on his rights. He's free to start a webpage that has all that crap. The key is I don't have to go to that webpage if I don't want to. However, once he and everyone else in the world starts sending me tons of this stuff every day, it costs me time, effort, money and of course productivity.

I applaud any efforts for anti-spam legislation.
I applaud any efforts for do-not-call legislation.
I applaud any efforts for do-not-fax legislation.

BTW, to change the direction a bit... Regarding the latter. Whenever, I get an unsolicited fax with an email address, I send them back an email politely stating that I will never do business with that company, because they sent me unsolicited faxes which used up some of my paper and ink supplies without my consent.

As you might expect, I sometimes get really nasty emails in response telling me I'm an asshole. The good news is I never hear from them again after that. What has surprised me though is that I have NEVER received an email response apologizing.

[Mithras]

Eug, I consider your stance a pretty odd one.
Do you vote for people or propositions that you prefer?

Donating money is not that different than voting -- it is a small contribution that may not seem to make any individual difference, yet in mass effect can bring about the desired effect.

[Chuckit]

No. I'll donate to good charities and to good causes, but politicians are rarely good anythings.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, I would call...

Well, that wasn't what you called it. You called it worse than destruction of property.

If you want to make a common sense argument, make that argument. If you make an argument such an unsolicited email being equivalent to destruction of property, expect to be called out on it.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Basically, you're falling into the trap that the ACLU wants you to fall into. That is that the ACLU's scare tactic interpretations can be only ones possible, which is of course incorrect.

You are correct in pointing out that is a fallacious argument. You are very incorrect about that being my argument, or the ACLU's for that matter. I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, that wasn't what you called it. You called it worse than destruction of property.

It is both worse and not worse than graffiti.

Generally the point of graffiti is to express the "artist's" point of view, but at the same time can be costly to the victim. However, there is almost never any intent to coerce or defraud.

Often the point of spam is to coerce or even defraud, while at the same time it can be costly to the victim even if that victim has not been defrauded.

P.S. I would hazard to guess that in terms productivity loss and cost to business, spam on average is far more detrimental than graffiti.

[subego]

Eug.

Let me apologize for getting huffy. I think the ACLU often gets an bum rap because their nuanced arguments get boiled down to their most sensational aspects. Of course, in making a couple of unresearched sensationalistic replies, all I accomplished was to make things twice as bad.



I think you'll find the ACLU has, like you, a desire to see laws that are properly structured. While it wouldn't surprise you to hear the ACLU is as interested in defending your privacy as it is your free speech, it may surprise you to hear the ACLU considers spam and telemarketing to be invasions of privacy.

The ACLU strongly supports the Do-Not-Call Registry. In fact, one of their beefs (though not big enough to sue over) was that it expired. The key instrument with which the DNCR passes muster is that it's opt-out. Had CAN-SPAM been opt-out, their attitude may have been different.

The ACLU had four main issues with CAN-SPAM.

1) The law should define, and then only apply to bulk email because...
   a) That's what the problem is.
   b) The testimony given to the Senate only discussed bulk email.
   c) The SC precedent is that regulation of free speech "must be no more extensive than necessary to achieve the government's interest."

2) If your email is considered spam under the law, inaccurate headers constitutes fraud. This is regardless of whether there is any intent to commit fraud, or whether the content of the email is fraudulent or not. Note, the issue isn't false headers, which of course, is fraud. The way the law is written, having no headers, or incomplete headers (being anonymous), would also constitute fraud.

3) Being forced to put in spam identifiers is both prior restraint and compelled speech. Note that the SC precedent is that commercial speech is covered under the 1st Amendment.

4) The prohibition of "deceptive" subject headings is too vague.


Here's the whole briefing.

[Arkham_c]

This is the first election in which I donated money to a candidate. That was back when Obama and Clinton were battling for the primary, but I am still happy with the decision I made. If my candidate loses this election though, I am unlikely to ever donate again.