Federal Campaign Laws Require Donor's Occupation and Employer: Fair or Foul?
Fef
2012/08/17 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
210 votes
|
|
46% | |||
|
245 votes
|
|
54% | |||
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:
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."
Does requiring information about employment violate the First Amendment? Or is it a fair federal law?
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."
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...
Top Opinion
-
Zuggi 2012/08/17 00:39:30
Second, this is NOT a violation of the first amendment. Money is NOT speech. It's COMMERCE. If you don't like the fact that you have to prove that you're submitting a legitemate, legal campaign donation.... The don't donate. It's as simple as that.
And for those of you who fear employer retaliation, should they "find out", remember, that there's nothing stopping those employers from retaliating against employees who choose to put political bumper stickers on their vehicles. (which actually IS speech). That being said, it would still be illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for supporting a different political candidate or cause than they do.
As for donors.. Go check out the FEC website for yourself. Or call them, like I've done in the past. It's not that hard. Instead of this ridiculous attempt to fit your agenda, by masking it as though I'm trying to fit mine. I have one agenda... The truth. Which is verified by the FEC.
If you want to purchase a printing press & materials to promote some cause that's important to you... Then go right ahead. But that's not a political donation.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you, they know money is speech.
Now, as for your second statement.... I find the last part intriguing. They "know" money is speech? Tell me... What defines money as "speech"? And how is money not commerce? You know, last time I checked, speech was a RIGHT guaranteed to ALL Americans equally. If money were speech, then those with less money would have less of a right to speak as others.
That being said, most employers know that some of their employees may hold different political views. And if you're a valuable employee, they're not going to get rid of you over something so trivial. And they're certainly not going to be digging through the FEC record to find out if you donated a few bucks to your candidate. If they're willing to do that much research to find something, then you probably weren't doing a very good job in the first place. But I digress.
The fact remains that political donors have been required to disclose their name & occupation for quite some time. This is not a punitive measure against the donor. It's to make sure that the candidate is getting donations from legal means.
in todays political environment where PAC's, SUPER PAC's and corporate personhood have been bought and paid for its the bare minimum of information that can be provided.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.opensecrets.org/bi...
ALL I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS THE INFO, that YOU failed to provide. A common problem when trying to locate liberal "evidence".
Should you actually require information to counter your stupid RW party religion I would be happy to provide it if only to SYTFU. Otherwise I would say you are done here.
You are ignorant, you are stupid, you are blinded by YOUR partisanship, YOU make attacks based on only YOUR ignorant, flawed assessment, and you could not post an appropriate link to your evidence to save your ass.
You are a cretin, but do not shut the F up, you are more valuable demonstrating the horse sh1t of the left. You are not an atheist, you bow at the alter to your god obama, in the church of the leftist loon.
Now I am done, if you are ready to STFU.
You run with with that and see how far it gets you. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Times up ... hold out no hope of that ever happening.