Saturday, October 26, 2013
Is anonymity in political donations like anonymous speech?
The Wall Street Journal talked about California’s
law (the Political Reform Act), passed in 1974, which makes it almost impossible to keep political
contributions anonymous, in an op-ed by Allysia Finkey Saturday, link here.
If campaign contributions amount to speech, then anonymity
in supporting candidates with money would seem to be a basic fundamental
right. Then, you ask, should
out-of-state religious donors who tried to support Proposition 8 in California
remain unnamed, and protected from public shaming or maybe boycotts? The question would have more sting if you go
back to 1978, when there was a referendum (the Briggs Initiative) which would
have banned gay teachers.
As for speech, I’ve always thought it was more
effective when your name s on it. But
then, there is conflict of interest, and the idea you can’t bite the hand that
feeds you. I’ve been in that place
before.
It strikes me that a significant portion of younger
people don’t see anonymity as essential.
Facebook, after all, requires a real name for a personal account. It’s policy
is worth reviewing, here.
Even as I read this, I wonder how this has played
out in “Arab spring” protests.
Until maybe ten years ago, it was possible to lead a
“double life”. Remember how recently the
military had “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Remember
when there was a public life and a private life? No more.
Should campaigns be any different? Remember, a few years ago, there was even a
flak over whether blogs should be viewed as “political endorsements” and
accounted for. That, thankfully, blew
over.
First picture, from EFF, rally on survelliance in DC today; others, mine, from AIDSWalk, which passed the NSA-surveillance protest rally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment