Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Just because something is public, it doesn't mean that it should be posted. For example, would it be ok to tweet George Zimmerman's home address like some people tried to do? I think almost anybody would say that it's not ok. But using your logic, it would be ok because if someone really wanted to know his address, they could find it through public records. I'm sure there are plenty of public records with his home address. That still doesn't make it ok to post his address.
|
That there is what you call a false equivalency. Because giving out someone's home address online is nothing like public reporting of their political donations. Which has been required by law since the 1970's. If you don't like it, write your Congresscritter. Next:
Quote:
|
There is no reason for Obama to be calling private citizens out for donating money to Romney. That is a form of intimidation IMO. I understand that you could look the information up. That still doesn't make it ok IMO.
|
Keyword being "IMO." In MY HO, public disclosure of political donations is necessary for free and open elections. Citizens have a right to know who is financing candidates' elections, as the political positions of those financiers absolutely influence the candidates' positions. There's nothing intimidating about it; no one is forced to donate to candidates. If you're convinced you're going to be hassled by the IRS, and you have something to hide from the IRS (otherwise why worry about being hassled by them?) then don't make political contributions.
Quote:
|
In addition, it would have been bad enough if Obama simply listed names and the amounts they gave. But he did more than that. He not only gave the people's names, but he gave a commentary on each person.
|
None of which was inaccurate. There's a saying, only the truth hurts.
Quote:
|
I'm sure you have donated money to candidates before and you know that it is public record. But would you like it if I created a website about it where I posted your name and told people personal information about you, such as information about your business dealings and that type of thing? I'm sure you wouldn't like it, even though it would be legal. I would expect more from our President. I can guarantee that if you were wealthy and you would have donated $100,000 to John Kerry back in 2004, you would have been outraged if President Bush called you out on it on his website and gave personal information about your business dealings.
|
I wouldn't care. I'd love to be rich enough that someone gave a sh*t about where my political donations go. And apparently Bill Mahar doesn't care who knows he donated $1 million to Obama.
And here are a few pieces, easily google-able, that list the names of big political donors- the Times one is about Obama's big contributors.
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticle...=1202548974101
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us...pagewanted=all
I look forward to your explanation of how the NYTimes is trying to intimidate people out of donating to Obama by listing the names of his big donors.