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.

Personally, I find the anti-Mormon hysteria — and the vindictive ‘outing’ of the Sacremento theater director a bit disturbing.

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.

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.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

#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.

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.

(I’m not at all sure this is a good idea, but I thought it was interesting.)

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?

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.

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?

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.