Should voting history and personal donations be of public record?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aristotle, Apr 4, 2014.

  1. aristotle macrumors 68000

    aristotle

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    I would argue that a society which claims to be democracy must have certain privacy safeguards to prevent abuse by certain pressure groups within society. We must be free to vote by our conscience without any fear of reprisal and we must be free to support any cause without a fear of reprisal. That can only happen if privacy is maintained.

    I think that both an individual's voting in elections and as well as their donations should NOT be a matter of public record. The Eich incident explains why. In that case, someone used the public records to suppress the rights of an individual by conducting a witch hunt. It is interesting that the donation occurred in 2008 and yet nobody seemed to see the need to bring up the donation at any point while Eich held the position of CTO. He was only attacked when he was promoted to the position of CEO.

    The problem is that Eich might now have trouble finding employment and yet he committed no crime. He was simply exercising his rights and freedoms as a citizen.

    Before you weigh in on this, consider that the pendulum of popular (not necessarily majority) opinion could shift some day and you could find yourself under scrutiny with those same record one day.

    I would argue that everyone has a right to support the cause of their choice with personal funds and that nobody should have a right to use that support to attack them for political gain.

    I think the status quo in countries like the US inhibits the freedom of individual citizens and that nobody can enjoy their freedoms if they are under fear of reprisals and witch hunts.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  3. aristotle thread starter macrumors 68000

    aristotle

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #3
    Agreed. I agree that regardless of what issue or which side you support, your freedom should be above the public interest in knowing.

    Eich was essentially convicted without a trial of a "THOUGHT" crime. We live in a dystopia right now and someone used 1984 as a blueprint when it was intended as a warning.
     
  4. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    Political donations above a certain level.
     
  6. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #6
    You'll never be able to get that through the tolerant left's head though. They are very good at throwing labels at people while claiming doing so is wrong. They speak out of both sides of their mouths.
     
  7. aristotle thread starter macrumors 68000

    aristotle

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #7
    Why? Can you explain to me a reason why political donations by INDIVIDUALS should be of public record? Do you think this incident was an example of correct use of public records? What if someone got you fired for the donations you made in the future? Would you scream thought crime or discrimination or would you just go along with it and not hire a lawyer?

    ----------

    What would be that level? 10k or more? 100k or more? Why would a rich man have less of a right to privacy than a poor man or a middle class person. Would you say that a member of the middle class should have less privacy than someone of the lower classes? If so, why? If you speak of donations by an organization or company then I would agree with you but individuals? No. This incident illustrates why public access is dangerous and limits personal freedom of choice and conscience.

    I would also argue that political affiliation/party membership should also be confidential because to have it public inhibits the freedom of association. How can you feel free and secure if someone can attack you for your convictions and associations?
     
  8. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #8
    If gun licence/concealed carry records are "public information" then so should voting records and donation records.
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    I'll agree with citizenzen, there should be a point where a decent contribution needs to be on record.
     
  10. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    Really, you had to make another thread with this crap?

    Nobody suppressed Eich's rights. They simply called him out for being an *******.

    Convicted of what? He wasn't arrested and he was never in court. This post is full of ****.

    His company simply decided they didn't want a bigot running the company and tarnishing it's image, so they got him to resign. Capitalism and the free market at it's finest, baby.
     
  11. aristotle thread starter macrumors 68000

    aristotle

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #11
    For being a what? A communist? Have you forgotten about the communism witch hunt?
    :rolleyes:
    Nobody suppressed his rights except his most fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by getting him fired for a "thought" crime that he did 6 years ago. Wait, they also punished him for exercising his rights to freedom of association, freedom of conscience and the freedom of speech.
     
  12. turtle777 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    #12
    This is a witch-hunt by the Gaystapo, nothing else.

    All day long they whine about how intolerant people are, and then they turn around and destroy a person's career simply because he didn't conform to their beliefs.

    How f*&^%#$ hypocritical.

    -t
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    was he fired or did he quit? :confused:
     
  14. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #14
    He quit, but he thinks it was a forced resignation.
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    Quitting is on HIM, I don't care if he thought it was a "forced" resignation.
     
  16. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #16
    So we know that political campaigns are getting their "personal donations" from actual people, not just getting some zillion dollar check and claiming it came from 5000 different people.

    Tell me, how does one use public records "incorrectly"?

    (a) How does someone "get someone fired"? Someone with the power to fire me actually has to fire me. The responsibility lies with them, not whoever "wants" me to get fired .

    Also, I could get fired for ANY innocuous reason (especially if you live in an "at will employment" state). That's the law.

    What does getting fired have to do with crime? And if I hired a lawyer, what good would it do me if my employer hadn't broken the law?

    ----------

    Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. Get your head on straight.
     
  17. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #17
    At first, I lol'd.

    Then I lol'd some more. :D
     
  18. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #18
    Sorry, should have been more clear. The guy quit, but aristotle thinks it was a forced resignation.
     
  19. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #19
    Here's a question…

    Should I, as an employer be allowed to see how you voted or which candidate you gave money to? Can I decide not to hire you because you gave money to a candidate that I don't support? This can open a really big can of worms.
     
  20. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #20
    For voting, no. That violates the 1st Amendment.

    For donations, seeing that the employer is allowed to see your Facebook posts or other information prior to your hire, the answer is yes. No violation of 1st or 4th amendments, because like your personal data, once it reaches the receiving party, you do not own the donation. That could easily be subpoenaed.

    BL.
     
  21. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #21
    But the SCOTUS has ruled that political contributions are a form of Free Speech/Expression and protected by the 1st Amendment.
     
  22. jkcerda, Apr 4, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014

    jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    SCOTUS IS WRONG on plenty of things

    EDIT. love Jons take on it

    http://theweek.com/article/index/25...-the-supreme-courts-money-equals-speech-logic
     
  23. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #23
    I think they're talking about how they would want it in their ideal world. Not what the current law is.

    Side note: seriously aristotle?? Another thread whining about the same thing? Get over it.
     
  24. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #24
    NO

    Political affiliation is not a protected class in terms of employment. In most states, I can fire you for any reason unless it's because you're in a protected class. So I'm sure this already happens, and the can was opened long long long ago.

    ----------

    What does the 1A have to do with employment? I can fire you for you saying things that are protected by the 1A. A private business firing someone is not a governmental action (which is what 1A protects you from).

    1A doesn't protect you against the repercussions of your speech.
     
  25. SoAnyway macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    #25
    I didn't realize that aristotle created another vent thread about this issue and should really be merged with the original thread he started.

    What this reminds me of is when I was in college and some people in my classes with deep personal issues personalized every topic we covered as a class. I'll share what I told some of those people, "the world doesn't revolve around you".

    aristotle, like I said in the other thread, stop your crying. All you are is some guy with deep personal issues needing to vent about it, see a professional and don't do it here in the guise of discussing public policy. Based on what I've seen and research I've read about people who have an issue with gay people, those who bash gays the most are probably gay themselves. If that's the case, man up and come out of the closet.
     

Share This Page