Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, contributions to political campaigns are subject to limits. Currently, an individual can donate up to $2800 to a candidate in an election and up to $35k/year for a national party committee. Currently, this information is publicly available. Donor.Watch is a political visualization and data mapping platform that makes it easy to find people who have donated to specific candidates.
With the rise of civic unrest, could these public databases be used to intimidate people from donating? Should these donations be private? Should Robert Lieberman of 4064 17th Ave, San Fransciso, a donor for Trump, be concerned?
From the beginning everything about voting was to be anonymous. For good reason too. But we do need serious campaign finance reform and it needs to be carried out over several points. But as far as being unknown for who you support financially the socialists have just amde a great example of why that is important...
"A website, known as DonaldTrump.watch has been launched which purportedly will name any person that has donated to President Trump’s reelection campaign."
"They claim that they do this in order to identify “Americans who Give Money to Support a Racist.”"
With the fruitcakes the socialist puppet masters have got in a usch a frenzy they are rioting, carrying out acts of arson, and actually murdering people in the street this is a serious issue.
So restrict the money that can be collected and spent on campaigns. There is no justifiable reason some campaign needs to raise 20 million dollars. Then you look at how so many candidates that lose are in massive debt even after collecting so much money they still owe tens of millions. Where does all that money go? Surely not into actual campaigning. That kind of money is used to buy votes and to finance fraud. So place caps on what campaigns can collect and spend. For instance the presidential race, limit each candidate to a million dollars. If one company gives a candidate all that in one bunch that's fine and voters can be made aware that candidate Joe Schmoe got all his money from a single donor. That is enough information for an intelligent voter to decide if that should help detrmine what they think of Joe Schmoe as a potential president. WIll he be working for the people, or the donor. The only time the donors should be outted by name is if they are not U. S. citizens. Which should be another reform, strict laws and penalites for donor being U. S. citizens. This would eliminate corporations in a manner because a corporation is not a citizen.
Other refoms that could help stem the tide of corruption would be ending any kind of tax deductions anyone or any company can get for donating to a campaign. Donations should be made because of a belief the person will do a good job. Tax breaks just gives an ulterior motive for donating, especially to companies who will make massive donations to both candidates. They get huge tax breaks, and who ever wins owes them.
This strangle hold the two main parties have on the election process also needs to be got rid of. Give people more, and often better options of who they can donate to, and vote for. Make third parties more mainstream instead of allowing flipside of the same plug nickel in our current false two party system sch easy means of wininng. Perhaps republicans would not be pushing warmed over democrats like Reagan, or democrats in republican clothing like McCain on their voters but actually give us a true Constitutional minded candidate to vote for. We hear a lot of talk about how competition is great for the market place, it would be just as beneficial for the election process.
I think campaign donation limits should be eliminated and campaign donations should entirely public. If Bill Gates wants to, he should be able to contribute any amount to your campaign. And if you want to be known as Bill Gates' pet candidate you should be able to accept.
The current system is a vast exercise in hypocrisy. Michael Bloomberg can send $40 million to Florida to turn out the ex-con vote for Biden, but theoretically, can only send $2,800 to the Biden campaign. Unions can't contribute to Biden's campaign but they can pay the salaries of hundreds of Biden campaign workers.
Jesse Unruh said, "Money is the mother's milk of politics" back in the sixties. It's always been that way. Let's not pretend otherwise. Just keep it transparent.
It’s already happening. Voters in a couple of towns in New Hampshire got letters that began:
"Dear neighbor, You have been identified by our group as being a Trump supporter. Your address has been added to our database as a target when we attack should Trump not concede the election."
The letter goes on to advise the recipient to check their home insurance policy to make sure they have fire coverage.
Ten years ago I’d have said, “Oh, they wouldn’t do that.” Now, I know better.
The solution is not to modify the behavior and lives of those who follow laws and norms of societal decency. The solution is to strike back at the terrorists trying to ruin our country, and strike hard enough that they are either destroyed, or persuaded to rejoin civilized society.
Once upon a time, everyone in our nation believed in some basic truths. We believed that everyone should be allowed to worship as he or she wished without threat of violence from the government or fellow citizens. We believed that everyone should be allowed say what he believed on all kinds of relevant topics without the threat of violence from the government or fellow citizens. We believed that everyone should be allowed to own the tools of self-defense which could be used in individual self-defense or collective self-defense. We enshrined these beliefs in the first two amendments to our Constitution.
We've had notable failures to abide by these principles. During the 1850's, people in Kansas on both sides of the slavery issue murdered one another over the issue of whether Kansas would enter the Union as a slave state or a free state. No matter how self-righteous one feels about opposition to slavery, murdering fellow citizens because they were going to vote for Kansas to enter the Union as a slave state was wrong. Most people who were voting for Kansas to enter as a slave state weren't as consumed by self-righteousness because their cause wasn't righteous, but their murdering fellow citizens who would vote for a free Kansas was wrong. The whole situation was a shameful chapter in our history. At various times in the 1800's, there was persecution of Roman Catholics. For many years, killing a Mormon in Missouri because he is a Mormon was perfectly legal. After the war, the KKK formed to terrorize freed slaves. That we look back on these situations with shame is evidence that we are real Americans who understand the principles on which this nation was founded and that we believe that we should be better than places where these behaviors have been considered acceptable ways to handle differences.
We're supposed to be a nation where people can disagree passionately about issues but still be good enough neighbors. Even if we disagree so strongly that we can't speak to one another, we're supposed to be a country where we don't engage in acts of harassment and violence against one another over these differences. If we lose that part of our civic culture, we've lost most of what makes us Americans. I don't agree with guys like Dave Rubin and Tim Pool on many of the issues, but they are liberals who want to work through differences as Americans always have. They are dramatically different from those who would dox someone for having a different opinion and the engage in a campaign of harassment.
While a few individuals along all regions of the political spectrum have committed wrongful acts against their political opponents, the big problem with publishing this information at this time in our history is doxxing by those on the radical left. The militant SJW types, the "Bernie Bros," Antifa, and similar groups are the ones who are gathering this kind of personal information in order to harass people out of exercising their First Amendment rights to speak. Contributing to campaigns is a form of speech and assembly. The right to assemble is the right to act with others to promote a cause. In contributing to a campaign, people are assembling by means of providing financial resources to promote their candidates. The left is attacking this basic part of our First Amendment. In doing so, they are traitors to our country. They've made clear that they want to tear down everything that has defined our country.
These people are no longer fellow Americans who simply disagree over issues. They are now domestic enemies and traitors to this country. They are committing treason in the violent acts that they are committing.
Instead of changing the campaign finance laws that give the system transparency, we need to destroy the enemies in our midst. We must declare these organizations and movements as domestic terrorists and traitors. We need to destroy those who are acting as enemies in this way. Anyone who harasses someone in person, by phone, or electronically should be charged with domestic terrorism and put in jail for decades. Prosecuting these people should become the primary job of our federal law enforcement agencies. Individual agents who don't agree with these priorities and won't work to accomplish these goals should be forced to retire or resign.
If too many people are unwilling to fight these enemies, then the destruction of our country should involve splitting the country. The primary political support for these terrorists comes from a few small areas. The I-5 corridor from Los Angeles to San Francisco is a major part of the political support for this kind of domestic terrorism. Likewise, the I-5 corridor from south of Portland to the northern edges of Seattle is a major part of the political support for these domestic enemies. The I-95 corridor from Philadelphia into Maine is a major part of the political support for these domestic enemies. A quadrangle from Chicago to Minneapolis to Madison to Cleveland is a major part of the political support for leftist domestic terrorism. We should let these areas split from the remainder of the United States and form their own leftist nation. We should build a wall around those borders to keep them in the Hellhole that they'll create and let the rest of us rebuild the culture that used to be the United States.
If the left continues to commit these acts against real Americans who disagree with them, there will be reprisals. At that point, the country will descend into civil war. Maybe those who want to destroy our nation want that. I don't want that, but I won't let them win through these anti-American tactics.
I think money should be removed from politics altogether. I don't remember the exact statistic, but I've heard that when Congress people are elected they basically have to immediately start campaigning for reelection - they spend at least 60% of their time trying to raise funds for their reelection campaign, rather than doing their actual job for the American people. Elections can be influenced by who decides to donate the most money. It's no wonder that most of our representatives are already millionaires.
Get all money out of politics. I have a set amount of airtime and debate time given. There is no need for attack ads every 5 minutes.
Needs more study on how to protect people from being doxxed, without compromising the need of investigators to check on donor identities. For example, donations could be made exclusively via banks from donor account numbers, which already enjoys protection from prying eyes.
It should be for the private citizen with the option to make it public info to the general public.
It can be open info for research and law enforcement investigations with protections in place and restriction on how the info can be used.
If you are a celebrity or have celebrity status, charity or a major business owner or board members that can hold power of persuading an election or policies and laws then it should be made public, but also how many employees are donating as well and how much donated (with a certain level of anonymity in place for the employees).
This is a complex issue where we need to protect the individual citizen's safety, rights and privacy but still make the donor information transparent and available for the citizens of the united states and the individual states.
They should stay public, and donors should already know ahead of time of potential risks of financially supporting certain candidates that are perceived as "wrong" for our society. Local law enforcement should swiftly handle any threats of violence/intimidation directed at a donor. Hang on to your guns folks, I get the feeling after this Election the country is going to see even more civil unrest (hope I'm wrong about such though).