US Chamber of Commerce slam President Obama for transparency

Maybe it's an attempt at transparency?

With your topic title I thought Obama was being opaque. But actually what was going on was that the US Chamber of Commerce wants to be more opaque but Obama wants to be more transparent.

This is actually one of the sticky issues I have with campaign financing in America (among many other ones). What guarantee have people of what they are voting for if they can't see donations? Honestly, China could be funding candidates and it's anonymous.

Actually, the Chamber has accepted foreign donations before and have come under fire for it.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

I don't see any reason for donations to be anonymous in the first place.

Because freedoooooooom!

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Yes, you have the freedom to donate. :D

Haha, my thoughts exactly.

But, does Obama have enough power to push this thing through? I'm not entirely clear on the rules of what counts as legislation and wouldn't something like requiring donations to be public count as legislation, therefore need congress approval?

Its not legislation, its an Executive order. I don't know what powers that has, though.

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Like breadloaf, I fully expected this to be about the COC bashing Obama for his lack of transparency, that being one of the many ways that he's not lived up to his campaign promises.

I'm in two minds about this issue; on the one hand, it's settled constitutional law that the right to free speech includes the right to anonymous free speech — a requirement to identify oneself and forbid anonymity is one way that a repressive regime can suppress speech by those fearful of retaliation.

On the other hand, knowing who's behind political speech helps us understand that speech in the context of the speaker's political and commercial interests.

A brighter future for a darker age.

The way I see it is, money isn't speech. At least, it's not speech until you convert it into advertising.

So there's no problem with forcing donations to be anonymous, because they're not speech.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I think constitutional precedent is against that.

In order to engage a wider audience, money is essential to effective communication (=speech); restrictions placed on that are pretty equivalent to restrictions on speech.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Well I like to take a wider approach to the concept. Constitutional law is there to improve the situation of the country, improving it in some way. Blindly stating free speech when you know for a fact a particular practice is damaging to the long-term prospects of your country is not a good interpretation of the law.

^^ But this deals with who is awarded a contract. Basically it's bribery protection. I would say that I'm allowed to say what I like in court but I can't hand the judge a brown envelope full of money but I can't say what I like in court because dealings with official bodies have rules prescribed to them.

Do we know that in practice it's harmful? Who knows? On what evidence?

We should also be aware that it's always easy to get support for bad laws if bad people are the public targets of those laws. What precedent does it set for the future? Does it weaken freedom of speech in a way that might turn around and bite us on the ass later?

A good test for these things is: imagine if the worst possible person you can think of on the other side of the political spectrum was in charge. Do you want them to have that power? Do you want President Sarah Palin requiring all companies that deal with the government to disclose their political contributions? Sure, you'd never be able to PROVE that contributions to democrat causes lost a company a contract, but you bet your ass it'd happen — and you bet your ass, further, that fear of it would cause those companies to drop support for Democratic causes like a lit firework.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Yeah, that sounds fine actually.

@SSOT: because you think most of these companies are solidly Republican-backing anyway? Or because you think that the openness would be worth the cost even under a Republican, unfriendly administration?

A brighter future for a darker age.

Personally, I think that's fine because a mixture of the latter and government is too incompetent to systematically deny contracts because of political contributions. Maybe in a few high-profile cases at best.

And, on that note, I think the bidding process and records for public contracts ought to be transparent, too!

The Republican administration under Bush was well-known for investigating peoples' and corporations' ideological purity.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Yeah, I think if the FBI and CIA can't figure things out, then the NSA will, and so...

At least this way the public will know too.

edited 28th Apr '11 7:31:50 PM by blueharp

There's been a lot of studies done about advertising and the effect on voting patterns and you have some basic correlations:

• Given all other factors the same, increasing a candidate's money supply increases their poll ratings
• Given all other factors the same, someone who receives more advertising presence increases their poll ratings
• Given all other factors the same, (this was a pretty big study I saw) someone who is caught with bad money (like foreign money, or just money from questionable corporations) loses in poll ratings

So yes, I think it does do harm and I think the empirical data shows a fairly strong correlation between money/power groups and the distortion of voting patterns. I can't "prove" anything and nor can I prove the extent to which the effect might be. However, I could argue that roads have no visibly measurable effect on the economy but it would be ridiculous to question their value.

On that, I think greater transparency trumps any concern over freedom of speech. Liberties and freedoms are aids in creating a more democratic society. Just as a government restricts your rights, it is the same entity that guarantees you have any in the first place.

@Morven: Sarah Palin isn't going to become president, so I don't think we have to worry...

In no particular order:

• The lack of the disclosure to the general public is a problem in and of itself. They are unable to judge the motivations of their government.

• We would know that they know but they would know that we know that they know and that we know that they know that we know that they know, you know?

• Translation: They would not be able to act on secret information because it wouldn't be secret. We would get to see how they are acting.

• If you know who your opponents supporters are, couldn't you undercut your opponent by removing the advantage of supporting them?

• My curry is too salty.

• Some do disclose their information, in a sort of "you all know we like this, if you support this,we'd give you cash too" way.

That term sounds vaguely familiar to me. It is a distinction without a difference.

But many countries have a bill of rights, and the point of a bill of rights is to declare that certain individual rights are in fact more important than the collective rights of the nation as a whole. If the government tramples on those rights, then it no longer serves the interests of its citizens.

edited 29th Apr '11 10:21:27 PM by Driscoll

WHAT A HORRIBLE NIGHT TO HAVE A DIALOG BOX INTERRUPT GAMEPLAY.

Except there hasn't been a single American boot in Libya, and a very limited presence in the long run.

People can call it what they want but the proof is right there.

Does there need to be a boot on the ground for it to be considered war? I'm pretty sure that a country is free to just use it's navy and air force to conduct warfare, and I seem to remember a short period of time where the majority of the fighting between Britain and Germany was mostly between their navies and air forces.

Also, the US had an F-15 have engine problems and its Pilot and WSO ejected and were rescued by the Marines and local rebel forces.

edited 29th Apr '11 10:32:13 PM by Driscoll

WHAT A HORRIBLE NIGHT TO HAVE A DIALOG BOX INTERRUPT GAMEPLAY.