Legalize it thread

[tvashtarkatena]

Direct campaign ontributions have long been viewed as a form of political speech. Unlike other forms of political speech, however, they fall under a constitutionally regulated exception that applies to candidates standing for public office. SCOTUS has ruled that the public interest of free and fair elections outweighs privacy concerns here.

 

Current law requires that the identity of individual donors be disclosed for amounts of $200 or more.

[tvashtarkatena]

So, you'd rather not participate in a primary political process for reforming the major issues of our time because you fear your name will be disclosed to whom and for what purpose, exactly?

 

I'd say Grandma's ballz are just a wee bit bigger in this regard, no?

[tvashtarkatena]

Wellllll...here's what I tell people who 'don't sign petitions' out of fear of (to date nonexistent) retribution.

 

"Dude...that 80 year old lady over there just signed. Grow a pair."

 

They usually sign.

I have a pair, thankyouverymuch. Have had them for a very long time. I still don't sign petitions.

But by your own admission, it sounds to me like you do your own share of intimidation at the clipboard...

 

It's not intimidation, it's an opportunity to man up and join the fight.

[tvashtarkatena]

If people don't want to sign, that's cool.

 

If someone says "Hey, I'm all for it!"...and then doesn't sign?

 

That's when they get the treatment. Sorry...I don't like pussies.

 

I call it robust activism.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Sorry...I don't like pussies.

 

We've always known you prefer snails to oysters. NTTAWWT

 

 

[sobo]

Direct campaign ontributions have long been viewed as a form of political speech. Unlike other forms of political speech, however, they fall under a constitutionally regulated exception that applies to candidates standing for public office. SCOTUS has ruled that the public interest of free and fair elections outweighs privacy concerns here.

I have absolutely no problem with this, as I said before. You are talking about elected representatives in that case, which I addressed on the previous page. That's not the issue that we are talking about now, which is disseminating personal information of petition signers. Different animal...

 

Current law requires that the identity of individual donors be disclosed for amounts of $200 or more.

I know that, too. But tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum can acquire that information? Tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum would need the names and addresses of the signers? Tell me what possible use could that information be to the opponent other than to seek out and attempt to influence the signer to vote differently come election day? Does not the non-governmental verifying agency have the duty to confirm or refute the legitimacy of the petition? Isn't that the only group that needs access to the personal information? Tell me why the opposition would ever need access to that personal information?

[sobo]

So, you'd rather not participate in a primary political process for reforming the major issues of our time because you fear your name will be disclosed to whom and for what purpose, exactly?

I vote in the primaries. I just don't sign petitions.

 

I'd say Grandma's ballz are just a wee bit bigger in this regard, no?

Resorting to ad hominem attacks now, Pat? Tsk tsk tsk...

[sobo]

Wellllll...here's what I tell people who 'don't sign petitions' out of fear of (to date nonexistent) retribution.

 

"Dude...that 80 year old lady over there just signed. Grow a pair."

 

They usually sign.

I have a pair, thankyouverymuch. Have had them for a very long time. I still don't sign petitions.

But by your own admission, it sounds to me like you do your own share of intimidation at the clipboard...

It's not intimidation, it's an opportunity to man up and join the fight.

I exercise my opportunities during the primaries and at the general elections. Thanks.

 

 

[sobo]

If people don't want to sign, that's cool.

Fine, glad you finally see my point.

 

If someone says "Hey, I'm all for it!"...and then doesn't sign?

 

That's when they get the treatment. Sorry...I don't like pussies.

 

I call it robust activism.

Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction.

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, I'm just observing the facts. Grandma's willing to stand up, in public, regardless of consequences for what she believes in (regarding petitions, anyway). You are not. That's cool...and your ballz are smaller in that regard.

[tvashtarkatena]

If people don't want to sign, that's cool.

Fine, glad you finally see my point.

 

If someone says "Hey, I'm all for it!"...and then doesn't sign?

 

That's when they get the treatment. Sorry...I don't like pussies.

 

I call it robust activism.

Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction.

 

Conviction is nothing without action.

 

Sorry...I've heard it all before.

[tvashtarkatena]

Direct campaign ontributions have long been viewed as a form of political speech. Unlike other forms of political speech, however, they fall under a constitutionally regulated exception that applies to candidates standing for public office. SCOTUS has ruled that the public interest of free and fair elections outweighs privacy concerns here.

I have absolutely no problem with this, as I said before. You are talking about elected representatives in that case, which I addressed on the previous page. That's not the issue that we are talking about now, which is disseminating personal information of petition signers. Different animal...

 

Current law requires that the identity of individual donors be disclosed for amounts of $200 or more.

I know that, too. But tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum can acquire that information? Tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum would need the names and addresses of the signers? Tell me what possible use could that information be to the opponent other than to seek out and attempt to influence the signer to vote differently come election day? Does not the non-governmental verifying agency have the duty to confirm or refute the legitimacy of the petition? Isn't that the only group that needs access to the personal infomration? Tell me why the opposition would ever need access to that personal information?

 

I thought campaign contributions entered into the discussion somewhere. You'd have to ask FW to look that shit up in his hypocrisy database, though.

 

The PRA is about open government, its about the public's broader right to know what its government is doing (after all, we're paying for it all, and we voted these folks in to do a job that effects all of us)...not about the specific need to verify names on a petition.

[sobo]

Well, I'm just observing the facts. Grandma's willing to stand up, in public, regardless of consequences for what she believes in (regarding petitions, anyway). You are not. That's cool...and your ballz are smaller in that regard.

 

Grandma probably doesn't know who is doing what with her personal information.

But please, Pat, continue with the personal attacks. I would have put you on a higher plane than that...

[sobo]

If people don't want to sign, that's cool.

Fine, glad you finally see my point.

 

If someone says "Hey, I'm all for it!"...and then doesn't sign?

 

That's when they get the treatment. Sorry...I don't like pussies.

 

I call it robust activism.

Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction.

 

Conviction is nothing without action.

 

Sorry...I've heard it all before.

One of my many convictions is that I don't release personal information. Nor do I commit funds over the telephone. Are you now to be the arbiter of my convictions as well?? To judge what are, and are not, legitimate convictions?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But please, Pat, continue with the personal attacks. I would have put you on a higher plane than that...

 

Why would you do that? Disagree with the local sociopath and he'll drop straight to insults.

 

 

[rob]

 

Imagine how terrifying it would be if there were no non-government agency capable of verifying a petition's legitimacy, and therefore the legitimacy of the initiative on the ballot itself? Fucking terrifying.

 

We're not talking about verifying legitimacy. We're talking about data-mining for nefarious purposes. A non-governmental agency charged with verifying the accuracy of legitimacy of the electoral process is one thing, and a thing which I believe everyone can support. But when any opponent of a petition can summon the personal information of the supporters of that petition (by invoking the PRA), what other purpose would there be in that if not to attempt to change those supporters' minds? And just how do you think those opponents might go about doing that? Could that be by harrassment, intimidation, and "uncomfortable conversations"...??

 

 

Which "non-governmental agency" gets "charged" to verify legitimacy? ANYONE should be able to verify legitimacy. That's how public democracy and transparency works. You shouldn't have a closed list of people who are "allowed" to challenge authenticity. How do you propose deciding who has the right to look at the signatories, and who doesn't? Who gets that make THAT decision?

 

Personally, I prefer to be left alone about my voting decisions. Just one of the reasons I never sign petitions.

 

Exactly right. If you don't want people to know how you feel, then you shouldn't lobby a new ballot initiative by signing a petition. Or by donating more than $200.

[tvashtarkatena]

If people don't want to sign, that's cool.

Fine, glad you finally see my point.

 

If someone says "Hey, I'm all for it!"...and then doesn't sign?

 

That's when they get the treatment. Sorry...I don't like pussies.

 

I call it robust activism.

Fine, I can understand your position on that. That's a person who lacks conviction. I don't lack conviction.

 

Conviction is nothing without action.

 

Sorry...I've heard it all before.

One of my many convictions is that I don't release personal information. Nor do I commit funds over the telephone. Are you now to be the arbiter of my convictions as well?? To judge what are, and are not, legitimate convictions?

 

Ad hominem, blah blah, but Grandma's still got bigger ballz. She's willing to be active in an important process of reform, even at the risk of identity theft (which has, do date, never occurred with petition signatures). You've decided that your fear of identity theft trumps participating in the petition process. Grandma is simply braver in that regard. Them's just the facts, dood. Call it an attack. I call it an observation.

[sobo]

Direct campaign ontributions have long been viewed as a form of political speech. Unlike other forms of political speech, however, they fall under a constitutionally regulated exception that applies to candidates standing for public office. SCOTUS has ruled that the public interest of free and fair elections outweighs privacy concerns here.

I have absolutely no problem with this, as I said before. You are talking about elected representatives in that case, which I addressed on the previous page. That's not the issue that we are talking about now, which is disseminating personal information of petition signers. Different animal...

 

Current law requires that the identity of individual donors be disclosed for amounts of $200 or more.

I know that, too. But tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum can acquire that information? Tell me why an opponent of a particular petition or referendum would need the names and addresses of the signers? Tell me what possible use could that information be to the opponent other than to seek out and attempt to influence the signer to vote differently come election day? Does not the non-governmental verifying agency have the duty to confirm or refute the legitimacy of the petition? Isn't that the only group that needs access to the personal infomration? Tell me why the opposition would ever need access to that personal information?

 

I thought campaign contributions entered into the discussion somewhere. You'd have to ask FW to look that shit up in his hypocrisy database, though.

That came into the discussion when rob brought it up, but it is my sense that he extrapolated my discussion to include campaign contributions, which was not what we were discussing when he entered the conversation. We were only discussing the availability of personal information of petition signers to opposition groups.

 

The PRA is about open government, its about the public's broader right to know what its government is doing (after all, we're paying for it all, and we voted these folks in to do a job that effects all of us)...not about the specific need to verify names on a petition.

As I have said in this thread before, I agree with the public's right to know what its elected representatives are doing and from whom they are taking contributions. But what this discussion has been about for the past 25-odd posts is about the need, or lack thereof, of opposition groups having access to the personal information of signers of a petition which the group opposes, and why those groups should, or should not, be allowed access to that personal information.

[tvashtarkatena]

Turns out Scalia and Thomas voted against each other on this one:

 

 

Cato report on Doe v Reed

[j_b]

But please, Pat, continue with the personal attacks. I would have put you on a higher plane than that...

 

Why would you do that? Disagree with the local sociopath and he'll drop straight to insults.

 

He is nothing next to you in that department. Troll.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

He is nothing next to you in that department. Troll.

 

Still smarting from Jim's utter annihilation of you yesterday, eh, j-bot?

[sobo]

 

Imagine how terrifying it would be if there were no non-government agency capable of verifying a petition's legitimacy, and therefore the legitimacy of the initiative on the ballot itself? Fucking terrifying.

 

We're not talking about verifying legitimacy. We're talking about data-mining for nefarious purposes. A non-governmental agency charged with verifying the accuracy of legitimacy of the electoral process is one thing, and a thing which I believe everyone can support. But when any opponent of a petition can summon the personal information of the supporters of that petition (by invoking the PRA), what other purpose would there be in that if not to attempt to change those supporters' minds? And just how do you think those opponents might go about doing that? Could that be by harrassment, intimidation, and "uncomfortable conversations"...??

 

 

Which "non-governmental agency" gets "charged" to verify legitimacy? ANYONE should be able to verify legitimacy. That's how public democracy and transparency works. You shouldn't have a closed list of people who are "allowed" to challenge authenticity. How do you propose deciding who has the right to look at the signatories, and who doesn't? Who gets that make THAT decision?

You're missing the point, rob. Do you really think that a group opposed to a particular petition wants to verify the legitimacy of the petition process when they request the personal information of the signers? Or do you think they just want to get their hands on that personal information so that they can attempt to get the supporters to change their views?

 

Personally, I prefer to be left alone about my voting decisions. Just one of the reasons I never sign petitions.

 

Exactly right. If you don't want people to know how you feel, then you shouldn't lobby a new ballot initiative by signing a petition. Or by donating more than $200.

And I don't. So I think you and I are done here.

[j_b]

He is nothing next to you in that department. Troll.

 

Still smarting from Jim's utter annihilation of you yesterday, eh, j-bot?

 

Only in your feeble mind.

[tvashtarkatena]

But what this discussion has been about for the past 25-odd posts is about the need, or lack thereof, of opposition groups having access to the personal information of signers of a petition which the group opposes, and why those groups should, or should not, be allowed access to that personal information.

 

It's not about 'opposition groups' having access to signatures, it's about the public's access to same, per the PRA. It's a legislative process. PRA requires disclosure unless a competing harm resulting from disclosure or a reasonable expectation of privacy can be demonstrated. Neither was effectively by the plaintiffs in the case.

 

Again, I remain on the fence about disclosure, siding slightly in favor (secretive government IS a HUGE problem, retribution is a non problem).

 

I do feel strongly about people who don't sign petitions they strongly believe due to mythical fears of skulduggery, however.

 

People all over the middle east are risking their lives just to vote...and we can't sign petitions because we're afraid of a credit card theft scheme that's never happened and probably couldn't, given the information that probably won't be disclosed anyway because no one will actually request it? That's some pussy shit right there, IMO. Sorry.

Edited December 1, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Unless you're going to meaningfully participate here, STFU and quit stealing time from your employer, KKK.