tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26340222.post7525528092272138313..comments2023-09-28T04:08:46.005-04:00Comments on The Hankster: Harry Kresky: HOW MUCH TRANSPARENCY IS TOO MUCH?Nancy Hankshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17428253702914703243noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26340222.post-10677682259266337872012-08-01T08:01:37.442-04:002012-08-01T08:01:37.442-04:00I agree with DavidPSummers here. Muzzling the weal...I agree with DavidPSummers here. Muzzling the wealthy will not empower the people. Ordinary people need more ways of participating fully in our political process. Restricting free speech of anyone, rich or poor, is antithetical to democracy.Nancy Hankshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17428253702914703243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26340222.post-40805380466147319352012-07-31T21:29:47.410-04:002012-07-31T21:29:47.410-04:00"That is self-evident from the lengths that t..."That is self-evident from the lengths that the wealthy go to to hide. They want their opinions to have effect on public policy but they want no personal repercussion from it. Why hide your opinions if you want to commit free speech? Isn't the point of free speech speaking publicly?"<br /><br />This is what is what giving me doubts about transparency. Free speech is an inherent right and IMO nobody should be expected to "pay a price" or "endure repercussions" for engaging in it.DavidPSummershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03117000144782673045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26340222.post-20835326395225425202012-07-31T21:24:53.384-04:002012-07-31T21:24:53.384-04:00I was initially all for as much transparency as po...I was initially all for as much transparency as possible. The, on the GOP blogs, I started seeing posts like this...<br />http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2887955/posts<br /><br />Now the examples are, as one might expect from a partisan site, anecdotal. However, I have begun to have doubts about this. <br /><br />In the end, I find myself asking the questions, given that people have a right to spend their money on political ads, what are we trying to achieve. If it is for people to understand why the message might be biased, then I favor transparency. When I see people talk about "doing something" about donors or "holding them responsible" that is where my doubts come in.DavidPSummershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03117000144782673045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26340222.post-43140309134286030312012-07-31T12:45:44.714-04:002012-07-31T12:45:44.714-04:00I also agree with Kresky. Thanks for running his ...I also agree with Kresky. Thanks for running his article here.richardwingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13470637786166917187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26340222.post-38305577506238489672012-07-31T11:53:02.704-04:002012-07-31T11:53:02.704-04:00I agree with Kresky. Matt Bai makes a convincing ...I agree with Kresky. Matt Bai makes a convincing case in last week's NY Times that McCain Feingold, not Citizen's United, "unleashed" the current torrent of dollars into our political process. <br /><br />Furthermore, disclosure is an ineffective weapon against wealthy interests influencing politics. Campaign finance advocates need to become much more creative and develop proposals that are not so easily evaded and/or distorted.jbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08940664320538128443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26340222.post-70029167258656112172012-07-31T10:41:37.944-04:002012-07-31T10:41:37.944-04:00When it comes to "campaign finance", the...When it comes to "campaign finance", there is no such thing as too much transparency. Large sums of money is there to buy votes. Period. The "chilling effect" argument is a red herring. Rich people just want to buy politicians in anonymity. If the concern is that the little guy would draw back, then make the limit above what the little guy would donate in a given election cycle or in a single contribution, e.g., $500, $800 or whatever works.<br /><br />This argument smells like an ACLU extremist thing with no connection to reality, i.e., the corruption of politics by special interest money.<br /><br />That is self-evident from the lengths that the wealthy go to to hide. They want their opinions to have effect on public policy but they want no personal repercussion from it. Why hide your opinions if you want to commit free speech? Isn't the point of free speech speaking publicly? <br /><br />It is one thing to win votes on the merits of the arguments made publicly to get an intended policy. It is entirely another to pay political parties and politicians for backroom "access" and secret conversations using professional lobbyists backed by piles of cash and the very real threat of giving that cash to the politician's opponent in the next election.<br /><br />Transparency cannot be and is not a bad thing. I cannot disagree more with Mr. Kresky's argument.Calmoderatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08593329409293991575noreply@blogger.com