Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    DEBATE    |    Enjoy opinions shoved down your throat    |    4,105 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 1,625 of 4,105    |
|    Matt Munson to All    |
|    Something written by me!    |
|    12 May 12 10:18:30    |
      Hello everybody.              There Should Be No Secrecy In Political Donations              For any successful campaign you need money. Money is the fuel for speech.       However there are cases in businesses and individuals clouding their donations       because people did not want their donations exposed to scrutiny. Recently a       top Romney donor Frank VanderSloot had customers cancel their business       relationships with him because they did not want to patronize a businessman       who had views that were contrary to their principles because Frank harbors       deep prejudices to the LGBT community.              President Obamas campaign has showcased a few of the top donors to his       campaign in the website Keeping the GOP Honest. Conservative blogs consider       this as an enemies list, but knowing who candidates are getting funds from are       a healthy indicator of what type of interest and policies candidates are       getting their appeal from. However instead of crying to your compatriots about       how Obama is hurting your business, scrutinize Obamas contributors to his       Super PAC and his regular campaign committees as well. I bet Obama has just as       many shady characters just as much as Romney.              Individuals and businesses should be able to stand by their donations instead       of hiding from them. If you did not like my donations to Ron Paul, then you       should be free to patronize or not patronize me if I was a captain of       industry. I think its responsible for consumers to pull out their business if       business people have principles contrary to their values.              Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Just as how Fred Karger exposed the major       players who helped to fund discrimination in California, people should have       the choice not to patronize the San Diego storage business owner Terry Caster       who spent over 693,000 in sponsoring Proposition 8. Even the National       Organization for Marriage wants people to boycott Starbucks, but unfortunately       for them their boycott targets usually get more business.              Target also received negative publicity for supporting an inequality loving       candidate for Minnesota Governor as well, even though Target portrays       themselves with a progressive ethos their corporate office sent money to help       defeated candidate Tom Emmer which gave them negative press and even Lady Gaga       dropped her deal to promote her new album with the chain. They said helping       Tom Emmer was because of his economic policies, but maybe Target should of       realized they need to raise a crop of legislators who may be pro-corporation,       but makes sure not to treat LGBT people as second class citizens.              With the Citizens United decision, it has opened the floodgates for corporate       political donations. Since corporations want their outsized influence, the       American people deserve to know how our political candidates and causes are       being sponsored. We should know who our political candidates are being       beholden to or what they stand for. Unfortunately there is another roadblock       to transparency.              Donors of a 501(c)4 should have their donations automatically disclosed, just       as how it took 4 years to find out that Romney hid his donation for the       Proposition 8 donations. Even though it was questionable about leaking the       information, the information should be legalized in the future. If a group       influences public policy, secrecy is not an option.              Even the Supreme Court stated that signatures for ballot measures are not       confidential. Doe v. Reed states that disclosure of signatures on a ballot       measure does not violate the first amendment.              If a political candidate wants to restrict your civil rights or ship your job       to China, India or Mexico you should be aware of the implications of       supporting that candidate for office.              Matt                     --- SBBSecho 2.13-Win32        * Origin: inlandutopia.dtdns.net - inland utopia bbs (1:218/109)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca