• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate votes to overturn IRS guidance limiting donor disclosure

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
109,221
Reaction score
99,592
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Senate votes to overturn IRS guidance limiting donor disclosure[/img]
The American public deserves far more sunlight regarding political donors and politicians. Who is secretly purchasing our politicians, and why are donors and many politicians afraid of transparency?

Related: [url="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/12/senate-democrats-overturn-trump-donor-disclosure-1057535"]Senate votes to overturn Trump donor disclosure rule
 
 

Political donations are a protected form of Free Speech and I feel there should be no limit on how much a US Citizen can donate to the candidate or group supporting the political position that any particular citizen supports, however, there should be openness about whom is exercising their First Amendment Right and speaking with their donation by disclosing the names and affiliations of those that donate to political groups and political candidates.
 
apdst said:
While were at it, let's do away with secret ballots, too.
Click to expand...

That's a false equivalency. If donating money to political positions held by groups or candidates is a protected form of public speech, then the speech should be in the open.
 

Everybody needs to pressure their reps, both republicans and democrats, to get finance reform done. SCOTUS screwed up royalty allowing companies to privately fund PACs, influence politics, and even astroturf (claiming to be advocacy groups while its really companies funding messages that benefit the company and people thinking they are from legit grass roots organizations.

you think politics is corrupt now, its even worse when we doni't know what shady people are buying out politicians.
 
Beaudreaux said:
That's a false equivalency. If donating money to political positions held by groups or candidates is a protected form of public speech, then the speech should be in the open.
Click to expand...

Unless the publication of those identities leads to intimidation and smear campaigns. Much the same way public ballots would lead to the same result.

Smears and intimidation of people and private businesses because of their political position is un-American. It's the antithesis of freedom and liberty.
 

There was a reason the Trump White House stopped publishing its visitor logs in 2017, and it had nothing to do with national security.

Sadly, Citizens United began the legalized downfall of this great nation.
 

that was SCOTUS's bull**** decision, which is terrible. Money is not speech, such a horrible ruling. But if money is speech, it should be legal to bribe people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…