Quantcast

Federal Campaign Laws Require Donor's Occupation and Employer: Fair or Foul?

Fef 2012/08/17 19:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees Americans the right to free speech in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers wrote this to allow people to disagree with their government and to avoid recrimination or persecution for their opposition or support of any political beliefs.

Campaign finance laws now require Americans to list their occupation and employer when donating money to a political campaign. Laws also require publicly publishing the names of donors, the recipient and the amount. This can chill free speech because anyone can look up donations and use it to punish someone. For instance, an employer may secretly disqualify an applicant because he donated to a different political party.

The First Amendment of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
From the Mitt Romney 2012 donation form:
"Federal law requires us to obtain and report your occupation and the name of your employer. If you are not employed, please enter None."

From the Barack Obama 2012 donation form:
"Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation, and employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in an election cycle."

Campaign Donation Form

Does requiring information about employment violate the First Amendment? Or is it a fair federal law?

Read More: https://www.mittromney.com/donate/romney-ryan-bump...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Politic... elptrek... 2012/08/18 10:59:06
    PoliticallyIncorrect
    +1
    But Jeff is O's biggest buddy. O appointed him chairman of a jobs committee. Sadly, Jeff has exported jobs to China. What a hoot.
  • elptrek... Politic... 2012/08/18 11:11:50
    elptrek P.H.A.E.T.'s wizard
    +1
    All politicians are secret employees of the big corporations.
  • Jon elptrek... 2012/08/18 14:39:40
    Jon
    It's interesting to note how many of these are Banks, Insurance Companies, Medical-related Companies, and how many received Bailouts, TARP, and additional funds from the Federal Reserve.
  • elptrek... Jon 2012/08/18 18:23:41
    elptrek P.H.A.E.T.'s wizard
    Don't forget the tort reforms that stop the responsibility of corporation when they do harm.
  • vdehl 2012/08/18 08:45:12
    Fair
    vdehl
    +1
    It's always been so. Why are you asking? I do see that donors could be damaged. However, one would want to know if the candidate will be a locket in his or her pocket.
  • JingerJewels 2012/08/18 07:01:29
    Fair
    JingerJewels
    Interesting to see who are the millionaire donor of the Odimwit camp besides Oprah and Goldman Sachs
  • JERSEYDUDE 2012/08/18 06:02:04 (edited)
    Foul
    JERSEYDUDE
    +2
    largest Obama contributor = Goldman Sachs

    largest Romney contributor = Goldman Sachs
  • mrdog 2012/08/18 05:35:05
    Foul
    mrdog
    +1
    Why require it? It just doesn't matter...bark
  • ▼♥☆Greencone☆♥▼ PB90s 2012/08/18 05:00:17
    Fair
    ▼♥☆Greencone☆♥▼ PB90s
    +1
    This does not infringe upon free speech as you are still free to contribute to a campaign even if people know who you are. If you are too afraid to contribute money to a campaign because you might not get a job because of that that is your problem not the laws. I hope this will make it easier to tell who has been paid off and who is not and to get a government that is less corrupt. Considering that many of the governments decisions are do to being paid off this could drastically change what decisions politicians make for the better.
  • Vis Vires ▼♥☆Gree... 2012/08/27 02:57:49
    Vis Vires
    "Being afraid to contribute money to a campaign because you might not get a job..." has merit. If one works for a govmt agency where the dept's director/politician is clearly a democrat and the employee a republican, there are ways to discredit the employee (i.e., insubordination usually used) it can cause one to lose his employment. Even though it's illegal, elected positions can force an employee to "volunteer" his time to campaign, knowing (but not caring) that the opponent notes which employee is helping the employer. If the other side wins, the poor employer is first to get fired. That's a fact. Obviously you have no knowledge of behind the scenes of govmt employees.
  • Vis Vires 2012/08/18 04:30:16
    Foul
    Vis Vires
    +1
    "...now require Americans to list their occupation and employer..."? That didn't apply to obama's donors. They were done via the 'net. Some say, $$ came from Arab countries.
  • NOT14U2 2012/08/18 04:28:07
    Fair
    NOT14U2
    It wouldn't bother me enough to lie about my occupation
  • McAustin 2012/08/18 03:59:42
    Foul
    McAustin
    I think is sucks. I have put some creative answers on that part.
  • Savior 2012/08/18 03:35:33
    Foul
    Savior
    It's sad, people who want to generously offer their money must now disclose how they received their money. Great way to prevent people from being generous, I love it government (they want to be the only charity on the block, I think all governments hate charities)
  • freedom 2012/08/18 03:00:36
    Foul
    freedom
    +1
    No but they always have. Fortunately, you can lie and they will never know or care.
  • exhon2009 2012/08/18 02:46:31
    Foul
    exhon2009
    +1
    So when Goofy donated to the Obama campaign did he have to list his employer as Disney?
  • Jack 2012/08/18 02:45:09
    Foul
    Jack
    +1
    I am giving you my own money. Need I tell you more?
  • Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel 2012/08/18 02:43:48
    Fair
    Annie~Pro American~Pro Israel
    +2
    Would love to see who all those global donors are to the Obama campaign.
  • abubincrazy 2012/08/18 02:28:39
    Foul
    abubincrazy
    +5
    I think your nationality should be asked.
    I remember Obama begging for money in Europe.
    He forced Chrysler to merge with Fiat(AFTER he bought it with OUR money and gave it to the UAW) and gave untold billions of OUR dollars to Euro bankers.
    Good thing he got all those special interests and bagmen out of DC, huh?
  • DeeB abubinc... 2012/08/20 00:19:46
    DeeB
    That's funny! See how much alike they are?! Romney just did that in Israel and London!!
  • abubinc... DeeB 2012/08/21 00:32:56
    abubincrazy
    No, he met with the leaders to let them know what he'll do when he wins.
    I doubt he'll be stealing companies with our tax money and forcing them to merge with Israeli or English companies.
    Or giving them to union mobsters.
    I'm usually easily amused. Not funny.
  • DeeB abubinc... 2012/08/21 21:02:26
    DeeB
    Well I don't know about that but I read it in a few places. This was the last one that I saved!
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/...
  • brian.southworth.921 2012/08/18 01:44:37
    Fair
    brian.southworth.921
    +1
    It's a step in the right direction to stop special interest groups, no matter which side they are throwing their money.
  • lee 2012/08/18 00:15:06
    Fair
    lee
    +2
    its not free speech unless you are willing to stand behind your position....and take what comes your way.

    that's how it works.
  • Mikey lee 2012/08/18 11:46:12
    Mikey
    Thank you. If you need to hide who the free speech is coming from, how do we even know it's freely spoken?
  • lee Mikey 2012/08/20 19:28:41
    lee
    well, if you KNOW who is saying it, you could go and ASK them?

    couldn't you?
  • srini 2012/08/18 00:01:09
    Foul
    srini
    +1
    Donations are supposed to be VOLUNTARY!
  • InoYamanaka 2012/08/17 23:29:46
    Fair
    InoYamanaka
    Why would someone not write who they donated to?
  • The Sane One 2012/08/17 22:56:37
    Fair
    The Sane One
    +5
    Corporations should not be allowed to buy elections.
  • apachehellfire65 2012/08/17 22:12:46
    Foul
    apachehellfire65
    +1
    just another tool in their opponents slime campaign!the only reason for anyone to want this.is because they think they can use it to their benefit!
  • lee apacheh... 2012/08/18 00:16:14
    lee
    like finding out who all the slimballs are who are funding Romney...
  • apacheh... lee 2012/08/18 05:21:13
    apachehellfire65
    +3
    and Obama! but it will never really happen. the ones that you would have to be concerned with are protected by both parties. so this little dog and pony show. is just more smoke and mirrors put out there to distract the weak minded from the issues. and the sides just trying to vilify the other.
  • lee apacheh... 2012/08/20 19:29:15
    lee
    so what's your solution?
  • apacheh... lee 2012/08/20 20:18:13
    apachehellfire65
    if anyone really wanted reform they would not care about donors. they would cap presidential election at a certain amount. the money both party's spend is ridiculous! if they were capped at say 10 million or less they would not need the big donors or super pacs.
  • lee apacheh... 2012/08/20 20:21:47
    lee
    we agree.

    now what?
  • apacheh... lee 2012/08/20 20:24:30 (edited)
    apachehellfire65
    we part ways agreeing on something.
  • lee apacheh... 2012/08/20 20:30:22
    lee
    no... we must find some little nit picky thing so we can continue to fight..

    fight, fight, fight!

    or,

    we could agree on some workable changes that could be made now and look to see who in our political class is taking action to DO those things and who is actively resisting those things.

    we could do that.
  • Grandbrother 2012/08/17 22:02:58
    Fair
    Grandbrother
    All the more reason to level the playing field and make all those SuperPac folks reveal their information as well. I for one want to know who's bankrolling our elections.
  • Epistemically Justified -- BN7 2012/08/17 21:59:57
    Fair
    Epistemically Justified -- BN7
    +2
    Fair!

    We need stronger laws for campaign finances, AND stronger laws for attack ads. It's gotten out of control on both sides, and it's beyond ridiculous.
  • phil 2012/08/17 21:43:22
    Fair
    phil
    Over 500. Yea ok

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/22 11:07:14

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals