TheAgitator.com
Transparency vs. Anonymity
Thursday, November 13th, 2008I have to cast my lot with my colleague Katherine, here. Opponents of restrictions on campaign contributions often try to stake out a middle ground by putting an emphasis on mass disclosure of contributors. I’m troubled by that. The ability to criticize the government with anonymity is a pretty critical component of free speech, if only because for much of human history, criticizing the people who ruled you could well get you killed. Remember, it was anonymous pamphleteers that sowed the seeds of the American Revolution.
I doubt there have been or will be very many instances of retaliation for political contributions at the federal level (though it’s easy to envision some scenarios where that might happen). But I could certainly see petty local governments having it out with someone whose politics were aberrant in the community.
I’m less troubled (though still a little troubled) by the theater director’s termination, if only because I believe in freedom of contract and freedom of association. That is, I think employers should be able to fire employees for whatever reason they please. But I’d rather live in a world where your employer, your community, and your government aren’t able to know what political causes you support if you don’t wish them to. If the theater director had been out protesting gay marriage with a sign and a megaphone, I’d see nothing unseemly about his termination. But that’s not what happened here. You don’t have to sympathize with the guy’s position (and I don’t in the slightest) to see the problem, here.
As a journalist, I’ve also certainly taken advantage of the ability to look up who has given what to which politician, and which politicians correspondingly changed their votes. But in a world where I couldn’t do that, you’d still be able to see how politicians voted on a given issue, and you’d still be able to adjust your own vote accordingly. You just wouldn’t be able to as easily ascertain if campaign contributions influenced that vote (and most of the time, they don’t–contributions tend to follow ideology, not the other way around). It’s just that people who participate in the political process who wish to remain anonymous would be able to do so.
What say you Agitator readers? Which value do you hold in higher esteem: transparency or anonymity?
CORRECTION: The guy resigned, albeit under pressure. But he apparently wasn’t fired.
Mr. Balko,
One’s vote should be anonymous always. One’s financial contributions should not. By contributing to a campaign for a candidate or legislative issue, one is attempting to wield more force than the individual vote.
I greatly enjoy your challenging and informative blog.
Agreed with Mr Cline. Accepting anything other than public funding should result in disclosure on both sides. A common sense threshold should be maintained though, perhaps anything under 250$ as immaterial. That raises issues with “bundled” contributions, but if a person makes it, he should own up to it.
Disagreed with Mr. Kline. It bothers me that future employers, friends, girlfriends, and anyone else that cares to know will be aware that I donated $561 to the Ron Paul for President campaign, particularly if we get in a situation where the links that come up for a search for him are related to the race baiting Ron Paul Reports of the 90’s. I wasn’t trying to make a public stand in that manner, I should be able to choose to be anonymous.
Anonymity for individuals – to protect the minority
Transparency for Businesses and Governments – allow the public know.
Adding more rules and exceptions just leads back to the current campaign finance reform laws.
Anonymity all the way down!
I support the requirement for disclosure.
I also support the right of someone terminated over such a trivial non-performance related issue to sue.
Perhaps this already exists and I am speaking from ignorance but I think that the public has a right to know if a company is financing lobbyists and what those lobbyists are lobbying for.
This to me is the more immediate type of impact in actual policy and law that should be transparent. Campaign contributions may support a given candidate and create ‘favors’ to be returned later, but only if the candidate wins. And theoretically these contributions help the candidate but do not deliver actual votes or directly impact policy.
If my campaign contributions are anonymous, than so should be the contributions of some corporate CEO. But if either of us is paying a lobbyist (and his various “expenses”) to sit in D.C. and try to impact policy in a way that benefits us specifically at the possible expense of others, that should be easy to discover and track.
Hearing that the NFL contributed to the internet gambling ban at this late date is an example. And if such information is readily available and I just don’t know where, then I apologize.
Perhaps because I don’t really understand how elections work in the big picture anyway, I don’t care much about making anonymous financing legal.
However, that isn’t currently the case; so one should act as if you can’t hide a donation (and one should not cripple donation systems such that it makes enforcement of the law impossible).
Doug at #3 – My take on it is that I just don’t associate myself with people I’ll have to apologise for.
I liked Ron Pauls positions, but the man was too flawed for me to really get behind him.
A compromise would be a general list of individual donors – without dollar figures attached, so if you wanted to protect your anonymity you could give $561 to Ron Paul, $0.01 to Obama, and $0.01 to McCain. All I’d know is that you donated less than the maximum individual amount to all 3 politicians, and then how could anyone know which your preference was.
But I do definitely think we ought to know who among us trying to influence elections, but not necessarily in which direction. That’s just fair, keeping that as a total secret is not okay with me.
OTOH – Business donors are not citizens, nor can they ‘fog a mirror’, so they should have full disclosure.
Eric beat me to my preferred answer.
Corporate donations anonymize on behalf of the members (be they directors, officers, or other employees). Nobody generally attributes a major donation by Microsoft to any of its lesser employees, so I don’t think there’s a danger there in individuals being retaliated against for their political views. Corporations also don’t get a vote, so there’s no appearance of disclosure of likely voting patterns either as there often is with forced disclosure of individual donations.
I am not troubled whatsoever by the directors firing – here is a guy who works in an industry with a large gay base who writes a rather large check to support an amendment that directly impacts that same base, didn’t really realize that those contributions are public information, and was “surprised!” from the reaction. Three stupids in a row. The guy is an idiot.
I am in the anonymous by individuals to a certain amount and full disclosure for any non-individual contributor camp. The simple fact is that there are problems with any solution.
Once you’ve promoted a position or candidate in public, you’ve given up your right to hold that particular opinion in private. That’s not to say the whole thing doesn’t stink on both sides, but the political arena isn’t an area where one should expect confidentiality outside the voting booth.
Having said that, there’s no doubt that the people who outed him are jerks, and his employers were king jerks. We all have stuff, political and other, that we would rather keep out or our place of employment. I couldn’t imagine having to be on my work behavior after 5 pm. But if someone wanted to, they could videotape me after a few drinks at the bar, me wandering into an adult book store, or me renting The Notebook, and send it to my boss trying to get me fired. It’s not illegal, it just makes you an asshole. But my boss would be the bigger asshole for letting my private life cause him to fire me while I had been doing a great job for him.
Besides all that, if you feel strongly enough about an issue to donate money, you should have the balls to stand up and defend your position if questioned.
We should all be able to give any amount of money to any political movement or cause anonymously.
As far as limiting amounts, what stronger expression of free speech is there than supporting political convictions? Individuals already fight the odds against a system that controls media outlets and news in general. To get an outside voice heard takes lots of money. Limiting political contributions favors incumbents.
Anonymous donations are also a requirement to avoid illegal retribution. Even percieved threats can make people hesitant to giving to causes they believe in. If you think people should vote anonymously, the same reasons should apply for giving money.
Draconian rules in this area tend to affect the average person way more than it affects insiders with lots of money and connections. If you have the money for lawyers, you can figure out how to use other vehicles to peddle influence.
Wow Radster … you opened a can of worms with this one. I understand the argument for being anonymous, but my first gut reaction is: “I pay taxes. So the government is supposed to work for ME as a citizen. Therefore, I want complete transparency in everything except stuff like National Defense Secrets.” After what has happened in the past few weeks, not to mention the millions in unknown foreign donations to Obama’s compaign … I have to vote for transparency. Overall I agree that there are problems with both solutions.
“Once you’ve promoted a position or candidate in public, you’ve given up your right to hold that particular opinion in private.”
Well, that’s part of the point: it wasn’t a public action if not for the action of government. So, should government be that actor? Like the man said, do you want anonymous speech or transparent speech (for values of speech equivalent to spending money)?
Either way, it campaign finance laws make for inconsistencies. I’d prefer anonymity (voluntary disclosure) in all private property transactions. But transparency can go a whole lot further.
Also, to keep in mind, selective “transparency” is easier to leverage against people than selective anonymity (though this case doesn’t apply).
I’m for full disclosure.
I don’t agree that retaliation at the Federal level is as rare as we believe, or hope. Churches investigated by the IRS for speaking out against Bush. What about the people who were denied Federal Justice jobs for having a spouse with democratic leanings. etc. The solution there is to have more disclosure and transparency on the government side
In the private sector, we cannot force transparency. If someone later finds that the person you donated to has some unsavory associations (e.g. Ron Paul), then I will hope that people can be grown up enough to put it in perspective. While you still hear about employees getting into trouble for something that comes up on the net, I think that this will become less likely, as more internet savvy people move up the corporate hierachy. First the boss will have to confront the fact that his kids have all sorts of embarrasing things out there, then it will be the boss himself.
A friend of mine who was being screened for security clearance, admitted to the FBI that he had experimented with drugs and had a DUI conviction. The FBI agents said that this was OK, as long as (a) he didnt still do it and (b) didnt lie about it: he got the clearance. I think that this is probably the way things are going to be in the future.
Real campaign finance rules might make a difference.
1. Corporations, labor unions, churches, etc. (profit and non-profit) are not citizens. No contribution allowed.
2. Only registered voters in the affected jurisdiction can contribute.
3. All contributions are fully taxable to the donor and are not disclosed by the receiver. Unused funds are considered taxable income and must be reported as such.
4. Retribution for a contribution is a civil rights violation of free speech.
I don’t believe it should be a requirement that contributors be disclosed (just as I don’t believe there should be any sort of limit on how much an individual can contribute), and there should be an option to give anonymously. However, in today’s hyper-connected environment, it seems hard to expect that a non-anonymous donation remain private – your name will be in a record accessible to others.
Maybe politicial leanings bleeding into the workplace isn’t such a bad thing. I’d jump all over an accountant, housekeeper, etc. with Austrian leanings – they may lose business from some but gain from others (like me).
On a technical note, exactly how would an anonymous donation work? A designated cash drop-off box? I’m trying to think how I could (hypothetically) give $250,000 to Ron Paul without someone along the way seeing my name on a check/credit card – yes, there are some complicated work-arounds, but I wonder how many would jump through those hoops to avoid being associated with their donation.
I refuse to choose. I want/need both.
“That is, I think employers should be able to fire employees for whatever reason they please.”
Ridiculous. Employing someone doesn’t entitle you to have any sort of opinion about what happens out of work.
There should be a way to get both. What about political donation lists that only show the hometown and an anonymous tracking number, with provisions to keep names classified without a subpoena?
There just is no good way to sell the favor of politicians.
Anonymity only for those who do not do business or who are not regulated by the government will not work because there isn’t a single entity in the country which is not regulated in some manner by every level of government thereby giving rise to an vested interest in the what, why and how of regulation. Therefore, anonymity must hold for all for it to hold for the small.
chsw
I don’t think the opposite of full disclosure of donations is allowing candidates to decide whether or not to disclose who donated. The opposite of full disclosure is full anonymity. Let’s let anyone donate any amount of money, but it must be anonymous to everyone, including the candidate.
Anonymity (for individuals), by a mile. I favor Eric’s solution.
Situation: a person in a very gay oriented job donates $1000 to an anti-gay proposition. That fact is discovered, and he, rightly, receives some feedback from his co-workers and people who patronize his organization.
He wasn’t asked to resign. He resigned because he did something stupid in hurting his own clients and co-workers because he’s a member of a cult and was told to donate money.
Calling it “forced to resign” implies that he was fired. From his letter and statements of people within the organization, that is not the case.
However, if by “forced to resign” you mean “felt that he had compromised himself and his organization and didn’t want to do further damage” then yes, that is the case. Like the woman who owns a restaurant here in LA who donated a large amount to Yes on 8, they deserve to have their views known to the public so that we don’t have to waste our money on bigots who own or run businesses.
I’m for full disclosure. I’m on the lists of donations to No on 8, and I’m happy to be there.
First off, I’d like to say, re-read the article. The artistic director quit. While there may have been pressure on him to quit, there’s no public evidence of any of that. So, stop saying he was fired. He resigned.
I entirely support the disclosure of campaign contributions, and I say that as someone who will appear on that list this year for the first time based on contributions to the Obama campaign(there are others, but those are all < $250 and will not be reported).
Joe, if the contributions are anonymous even to the candidate, then the candidate has no way of validating that the donor has any right to give the money. If you weren’t an Obama supporter this year, then I’ve got a good nightmare scenario for you. Y’know the money advantage Obama had? Now imagine if foreign donors had been allowed to contribute in unlimited amounts.
#20
Anybody is entitled to have any opinions they want regarding what someone does during work or off-work. But the issue of an employer firing an employee for the employee’s political stance is not about “having opinions,” but rather being able to control your own property. Any robust appreciation of private property rights necessarily entails that an owner/employer has the right, even if it’s not a nice thing to do, to fire an employee for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all, absent some contractual obligation otherwise (like a “for cause” firing provision).
I’m for transparency, as long as there are protections in place for the individual (i.e., I’m not a believer in complete freedom of contract).
Full disclosure.
I’m with #28 and not #20.
For example, if part of the job is being the public face of the company, then the employee’s reputation is very relevant.
I don’t really want to be contrarian, but this is a challenge for all of you who think full transparency works.
Name something that is supposed to be fully transparent and really works that way with no loopholes for well connected individuals.
The lesson from this election on this issue was that campaigns need to be prohibited from taking money from untraceable electronic sources like prepaid Visas and American Express cards.
I’m for anonymity. Just watch: When we get single-payer health care crammed down our throats by the democrats, the primary list of those denied entry in the system will be the donation list from Ron Paul’s presidential bid.
Why not go for anonymity to the recipient as well. Give as much as you want to who you want, whether you are an individual or a corp. However, the money goes into a blind trust. The candidate gets to know the balance, but not where it came from. I can then support who I want, remain anonymous, and all the candidates who claim that contributors arent “buying” representation can make good on that claim.
I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between donating to a cause (No on 8, ACLU, NRA) and donating directly to a candidate.
FWIW, there’s a Wisconsin controversy which bears on this.
The Wis Mfgrs/Commerce ass’n had heavily supported a ‘conservative’ (and successful) individual for the WI Supreme Court. Some of their advertisements were controversial, but not inaccurate.
Following the election, a member of the Wis Mfgrs/Commerce Board resigned that position. He’s also the Chair of a large general contracting firm which was building a VERY large addition for a Wisconsin software company.
Turns out that the CEO of the software company is a very, very, left-leaning activist–and she had “advised” the construction Chairman that unless he dis-associated himself from Wis Mfgrs/Commerce, he would lose the contract for her Company’s building. That would have had a severe impact on the contractor’s business (not to mention a large number of his employees.)
All perfectly legal, of course.
Simple: All contributions should be anonymous to the recipients. Set up an organization that accepts contributions that are earmarked for a candidate. Bundle those contributions and distribute them to the candidates anonymously. If you believe in a candidate you can contribute to him/her, but there can be no quid pro quo because the candidates can’t know the quid (or is it the quo?).
“The Wis Mfgrs/Commerce ass’n had heavily supported a ‘conservative’ (and successful) individual for the WI Supreme Court. Some of their advertisements were controversial, but not inaccurate.”
Actually many of the WMC ads were most certainly inaccurate.
Second, Are you arguing that a software company doesn’t have the right to spend its money as it see’s fit? That is should be illegal for a company to not do business with someone associated with an organization with which it disagrees?
Except that such a system is going to be inherently insecure and eventually (by that I mean ‘within 6 weeks’) whatever anonymizing code they use will be broken and people with the right knowledge will be able to connect A and B. Reference the controversy a few years ago when AOL accidentally released “anonymized” search records. Search records were only referenced by number, not screen name or individual identity, yet enterprising individuals were quickly able to connect the numbers to usernames and from there to individuals.
Of course, the reason this is even an issue is because government is involved in so many areas where it has neither the moral nor constitutional authority to be. Fix government and this becomes much less significant.
Transparency of government is important; anonymity of opponents is important. Why not have both? The winner of any election must publish a complete list of all donations: who and how much. The loser can be silent.
(I’m not at all sure this is a good idea, but I thought it was interesting.)
Mr. Bowers is right. The problem isn’t that we give money to politicians, the problem is that we have politicians. This is like arguing how to wage the drug war knowing good and well that we shouldn’t be waging it at all.
Does anyone else see the humor in a *theater* director being anti-gay marriage?
Anyway, I don’t think he should have resigned/been fired. Even if he had had a billboard and a bullhorn. It’s his right to hold that opinion and express it. As long as it doesn’t affect the quality of his work, it’s irrelevant.
#32: Even if there is never a true “fully transparent” politician, it does not mean that we should not pursue as much transparency as possible. A goal being unattainable does not make it worthless. To argue otherwise is like saying that because we will all die some day, that we should never go to the doctor.
#44: I don’t think anyone is disputing the theatre director’s right to have or express opinions. However, the right to hire/fire him is the employer’s, not ours.
In this particular case, the public support of anti-gay initiatives would probably affect the ability of an artistic director to perform his work, because his work involves very extensive interaction with the gay community, and because his presence jeopardizes the relationship of his organization with its customers.
I have one question for you all:
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?
The fact is that, as long as politicians have immense power to control people and money, there is not a single thing you can do to control those who want to buy favors from those politicians. Once you’ve created a market, the more you restrict it, the more you’ll push it under ground. But you can’t make it go away.
I’m totally for anonymous speech. For those who think “it can’t happen here”, it can. What you say, even here on this very blog, could conceivably be used against you someday, whether by government or others. I also think contributions, anonymous or not, are a form of expression and are protected. Back when the First Amendment meant something (it doesn’t anymore), I think campaign contributions would be recognized as such.
The only way to control campaign finance is to limit government power. And that, we know, will never happen.
A common sense threshold should be maintained though, perhaps anything under 250$ as immaterial.
According to present statutes and regulations, if an individual contributes less than $200 to a campaign, reporting is not necessary. If an individual contributes more than $200, whether all at once or in small transactions, reporting is required. Obama received an unprecedented amount of money in transactions below $200. He has not released information that would make it possible to ensure with any certainty that everyone whose combined donations exceed $200 is reported. Indeed, I would not be surprised if he has avoided collecting such information.
Someone who stopped by five stores once a week could buy with cash a $200 gift card at each store while arousing very little suspicion. Go online at an Internet cafe and donate $995 completely anonymously. Repeat as often as desired. The $2200 limit on total contributions wouldn’t be a factor at all. If one was willing to do more legwork or found some reliable assistants, one could donate an essentially-unlimited amount of untraceable cash. One might waste 10% in card fees and help costs, but if someone wanted to donate $1,000,000 it would hardly be impossible.
Transparency will breed a viral reciprocity. Anonymity is our only choice….
Here’s a hypothetical: Let’s suppose that a gay theater director in Utah felt that he had to resign his job after it came to light that he sent a contribution to the anti-prop 8 effort — that Mormons from around the country threatened his employer with boycott unless he left. Would that be any better/worse/different?
Personally, I find the anti-Mormon hysteria — and the vindictive ‘outing’ of the Sacremento theater director a bit disturbing.
You could, BobzBob, point out the specific “inaccuracies” of the WMC ads…
Matter of fact, I don’t have a problem with the s/w company doing what it did.
But it’s also clear that the Left has decided to elevate political disagreement to economic blackmail.
SO….germane to the thread, anonymity is preferred.
Lloyd: the hysteria is disturbing, and it would be no less disturbing coming from the other “side.” That is not an argument against transparency, however.
Transparency cost this fellow his job. I guess people have to be careful from now on what causes they support or oppose.