Obama Trying to Intimidate People from Donating to Romeny

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Sigh. Once again, Obama Derangement Syndrome blocks people from taking the time to Google because then they might have to admit that something that tells them something they want to believe is true is, in fact, total bullsh*t..

From the FEC site:

<Information Available to the Public
As a voter, you may be interested in learning how a particular candidate finances his or her campaign. Who is contributing? How much? Is the candidate using personal funds to finance the campaign? Does the committee have debts? Or you may want to know which candidates a party committee or PAC is supporting, and how much the committee is giving.

This information is available to the public in the campaign finance reports regularly filed by all political committees supporting Federal candidates. You may access these reports and other FEC campaign finance information on your home computer. The Commission's Public Records Office also keeps all reports on file and will send you copies of specific reports, upon request. You can also order computer printouts focused on the information you want. Call the toll-free number, 800-424-9530, or 202-694-1120.>

http://fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#info

So, this information that Obama is allegedly using to "bully" people, in fact, is available to anyone with a home computer, courtesy of the Federal Election Commission.

I notice, too, that this op-ed piece didn't actually include a link to the the page that was allegedly so threatening. So, I did what any person capable of rudimentary critical thinking would do- I went and looked at the actual page. Here's a link:

http://www.keepinggophonest.com/behi...omneys-donors/

And nothing on the page is anything that isn't public record. Nor is there anything that remotely sounds like a threat.

What was particularly hilarious in that absurd op-ed was the comparison of this site listing public information to Nixon's enemies list. Omigawd; they're EXACTLY THE SAME, YOU GUYS! Because shut up, that's why!

ODS strikes again! (edit: corrected because I mistyped. See ice and forehead slapping, below)

I now need to get ice to counteract the bruise I gave myself from all the forehead slapping.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Danzig]

i think the woman's article comes across as paranoia. donors have always been listed, never saw it written about in such a way before.

when obama actually tries to do something (ie sic the irs or one of the other agencies she named) to someone, than i'll think she has a point. right now nothing has been done differently than in any other campaign.

[GenuineRisk]

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:

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.

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.

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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:



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.



None of which was inaccurate. There's a saying, only the truth hurts.



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.

The NY Times didn't attack the character of any of the donors.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The NY Times didn't attack the character of any of the donors.

donors have always fallen under scrutiny, with many pols getting heat for some of their donors, and many of them returning the money that was given. this is nothing new, people pointing out who gave to whom and how much.

this is another in a long line of stories that illustrate the saying 'how great the sin when someone else commits it'.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

donors have always fallen under scrutiny, with many pols getting heat for some of their donors, and many of them returning the money that was given. this is nothing new, people pointing out who gave to whom and how much.

this is another in a long line of stories that illustrate the saying 'how great the sin when someone else commits it'.

I could be wrong but I'm not aware of any previous President posting names of their opponent's donors on a website, and then doing a negative commentary on each donor. If this has been done before, then I totally agree with you that the writer of the op-ed is just being hypocritical. But I don't think this has been done before.

[Danzig]

lol
you think barack made the list? that's hilarious.

and yes, there have been sites, lists, character discussions about donors, etc. this is nothing new.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
you think barack made the list? that's hilarious.

and yes, there have been sites, lists, character discussions about donors, etc. this is nothing new.

You know what I mean. I don't mean that he personally made the list.

I still think this is a first in terms of a list with a negative commentary posted on the President's website. If you can show me when this was done in the past, then I will admit that you are right and that the article was much ado about nothing.