My gym charges dues too. Does that mean it's a nefarious entity? While I appreciate the comparison you're trying to make, the Chamber of Commerce doesn't threaten strikes, among other things. It's a business coalition that lobbies. They have a right to do that, as do private sector unions.
Um, wow. Seriously Dread, the channeling Loki thing looks bad.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I never said they didn't. I'm just noting your hypocrisy in attack the one as The Evil That Will Destroy The US, with not a peep of concern about the other. You betray your biases. You use the "general good" as a rationalization for condemning unions, but the the fact is that your agenda is the advance of business interests and corporatism.While I appreciate the comparison you're trying to make, the Chamber of Commerce doesn't threaten strikes, among other things. It's a business coalition that lobbies. They have a right to do that, as do private sector unions.
No, I drew a distinction between private sector unions and public sector unions. I've drawn this distinction before.
I think public sector unions are destroying the US and killing social progressivism. Private sector unions are a different thing.
According to all the investigative news lately, no--the chamber hadn't fully disclosed their funding. It took wading through tax filings to piece it together, not exactly transparent. They operate as a PAC and shouldn't use 'anonymity' to hide donor identity. Especially when their goal is to influence policy and legislation, the public deserves to know who's behind what. Just like advertising, and political ads.
The Cordoba group had disclosed everything, and their fund-raising hadn't begun yet. Not sure why you're more bothered by a religious group building a community center in NYC, than who's trying to buy, err influence our government leaders at state and national levels.
I must have missed that particular distinction from you, but thanks for clarifying.
I don't disagree with you, but they're just using free market principles and freedom of assembly. If you want unfettered free markets, you can resent a group working together to maximize their benefit from the system.I think public sector unions are destroying the US and killing social progressivism. Private sector unions are a different thing.
See this is the part where I have to disagree. If this is just free market assembly, why are unions successful with government positions and not in the private sector?I don't disagree with you, but they're just using free market principles and freedom of assembly. If you want unfettered free markets, you can resent a group working together to maximize their benefit from the system.
Apparently you haven't looked at the auto industry. Or steel. Or truck drivers. Unions have been very successful in the private sector. That's why we have health plans.
And yet strangely I don't work in an industry with strong unions and I have a health plan. Imagine that.
And the auto industry makes me laugh since they just bailed out (again) by the government. That feeds my point that government unions are bad not because workers unionize but because big government Democrats support them. And its particularly heinous because the unions essentially vote themselves more benefits via the ballot box. The government unions need to be wrecked not because they are using the power of assembly in a free market but because they are using government coercion to get paid more then the market would normally bear.
You have employer subsidized health insurance, because you work in the insurance industry. Imagine that.
Tax filings is disclosure. Just because people have to actually go read through those filings (which are complicated, like our tax structure) doesn't mean there's no disclosure.
I actually think the auto and steel industries aren't the best examples. I mean, in those cases the success of unionization are inversely proportional to the success of those industries.
And those are also highly protected industries. So heavily protected and unionized that foreign car companies have set up shop right here to make cars and are generally killing it against unionized US auto manufacturers.
But that's freedom of assembly and all good in the private sector as long as there aren't laws like card check and other tricks to unfairly expand membership.
But more broadly, I think things like unions (as with many things) are different when the government is involved. Generally speaking, I don't think the government has the right to assembly against itself.
The article says AmCham didn't disclose the donor names; they were found by combing through the donor taxes and matching up amounts.
At least I'm consistent. Open and transparent. Hiding things is suspect. You seem to have a double standard, one for religious groups and another for the chamber acting as a PAC.
Yeah, but the law doesn't require donor names. And candidly, I think you're not thinking it through by disclosing everyone's donor names. Do you think gay rights would have progressed as much if every person who donated to HIV and gay-rights groups were immediately disclosed in the 1980s?
I also didn't demand that the law be for Cordoba House to disseminate donor lists. I said demonstrating that it wasn't just a Saudi-run guest house would help me be more comfortable with it given the context.
It's the law I'm complaining about. No, I don't think corporations are individuals. Either way, since our system operates around money, lobbying, special interests, earmarks, buying influence.....disclosure is only fair and right. Advertising works, lobbying works, and yeah, money talks. That's why so much money is "donated" to groups like the chamber.
The old NAACP argument for protecting donors against harassment has come full swing now, hasn't it? Just look at what happened with Target Corp. when the public learned of their political donation to a homophobic candidate.
The other component of free speech is related to assembly, and the public having the right to picket/protest. To do that, full disclosure is necessary, without having to hire forensic accountants to comb through tax records. Especially if large groups like the chamber has money to pay for finding and using loopholes, just to remain opaque.
Since you cared about the potential of a "Saudi-run guest house", then do you also care about policy, or if it's China who's pumping funds into politician's pockets?
edit to add some factoids:
No wonder they oppose the DISCLOSE act.The Chamber has emerged as the largest lobbying organization in America. It spent $91.7 million on lobbying in 2008, and $144.5 million in 2009, up from $18.7 million in 2000. The Chamber's lobbying expenditures in 2009 were five times as high as the next highest spender: Exxon Mobil, at $27.4 million.[20] The Chamber had more than 150 lobbyists from 25 different firms working on its behalf in 2009. The major issues that it advocated on were in the categories of torts, government issues, finance, banking and taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...er_of_Commerce
Last edited by GGT; 10-25-2010 at 12:41 AM.
So in order to protest something, I would have to consent to having my name published in a roster available to my opponents, employers, acquaintances, etc? That's regulation going out of its way to hurt people.
As with many people, my job involves background checks. I wouldn't want that file to contain a mention that I attended anti-war protests before the Iraq war. Especially because I was just there to watch and because all my friends were going. Because in the world you're envisioning, "full disclosure" demands that I be permanently branded with that.
How long are you going keep comparing your personal privacy to the privacy of a corporation? It's a very dishonest argument in the context of this discussion. Individuals and corporations are not the same.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Because legally they are the same in these areas, and because individuals can give just as much money to a PAC. And because GGT specifically said that "full disclosure is necessary" to assemble a demonstration.
That is absolutely not true. Just one little legal difference is that a corporation cannot serve a prison sentence for libel, individuals can.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
You don't have to register to BE a demonstrator. But if average people and corporations already have to be specific about their donations (to the IRS), then why object to names being on a donation list? We already have laws protecting people from job discrimination based on their political affiliations.
Because we're revolving around the same freedom of assembly issue. Freedom of assembly doesn't mean you can dig deep into the people assembling. Laws that protect people from discrimination based on political affiliations are made significantly less powerful if people don't have the option to hide their political affiliations.
If you're so insistent that money is such a major part of politics, isn't the private movement of political money akin to a secret ballot?
I think you misunderstood what I meant about assembly. People can only assemble to complain or protest, if they're aware of who's doing (or paying) for what. The Target Corp. consumer protest is a good example.
The use of massive amounts of private money should also be disclosed, IMO. Knowing what the Koch brothers funds, trying to look like small grass roots groups, or knowing who's behind Freedom Works---yeah, that matters.
Huh. I was about to say that individuals can't serve prison sentences for libel either, in the US, but it turns some states do maintain criminal libel laws. It's still incredibly hard to get a conviction for though. In the last 40 years, there have been 16 convictions, of which almost half did not involve prison sentences. I'd wager not one of those involved elections either, it is basically impossible to pursue libel in politics.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Is your observation meant to distract attention away from the fact that corporations are not legally the same as individuals in the context of this discussion?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Love the logic there. Because corporations aren't treated the same as individuals in all circumstances, we should feel free to restrict their rights for no sane reason. Perhaps we should not provide lawyers to minors or not apply the 8th amendment to the mentally handicapped. After all, neither group is treated the same under the law as your average adult.
Hope is the denial of reality
I have to ask...how would you describe the Target issue?
Target made a contribution to a candidate that held homophobic opinions, and was prepared to make policy that way. Once that was made public (because Target disclosed their contributions) some activist groups objected and threatened a boycott. Target did a turn-around, a mea culpa, apologized and tried to rescind the contribution. They hadn't realized that the pro-business candidate had an offensive agenda that, in the big picture, would be more anti-business by alienating a large group of customers.
How would you describe the Target issue?
Let's assume a small business owner does the same thing. The outcome is probably the same (as long as you could get people to care). Does that mean small business owners shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns?
Hope is the denial of reality
So you are advocating using the same rules for minors as we do for corporations?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
So you're continuing your streak of 1,642 inane posts?
Hope is the denial of reality
This is an inane argument for treating corporations the same as individuals.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
But that's an entirely separate thing.Donations to candidates are different than donating to an advocacy group.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote