One of the largest problems I see today in public discourse is the staggering amount of disinformation. For example, http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...r-Groups-in-Neutrality-Title-II-Fights-129239 Should the United States pass a law that requires disclosure of contributions to political causes? While the above law would not necessarily reduce the amount of misinformation in the public, at least we would know the source of the information.
Make it a condition of holding public office that they report any donations or gifts given to them over $5000. There's no cause for an obligation on the person doing the donating. In addition, this sort of thing won't stop collusion between state and industry, in a worst case scenario they'll just air independent ads, tit-for-tat. Unless you want to go fully pro-suppression of free speech, it's difficult to stop people airing their political opinion.
Needs to be all donations from a single person or group that exceeds $5000 total, not several one times of less than 5K. Another condition must be that the children of any elected office MUST attend a public school in their elected district, NO more private school opt outs, IF it is good enough for my kid then it is damn well good enough for theirs.
Meh, public education should be abolished in full immediately. Give everyone a tax refund proportional to the amount they've paid in tax. Give them back their money.
It's not just politicians. Companies create pretend consumer advocate groups, and other tricks to make the appearance of public support. And in almost all cases, one can't find out who is funding it. I'm not saying that they can't do it; however, I'm saying they should put their name on it.
We should just put our politicians in NASCAR style suits so we all know who "sponsors" them. The post bill passing interview potentials are endless.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with creating consumer advocate groups, unless you give something to a politician you should not have your name listed. That includes handing out pamphlets, circulating a newsletter, airing your political views on your 24 hour cable news channel, funding an advocacy/lobbying group like the NRA/PETA/whatever.
Whenever I distribute a newsletter? My point is, other than direct donations, there's a completely arbitrary distinction between casual expression of political opinion, and political tit-for-tat collusion. Airing your opinion on nytimes.com vs on PF.com - no real difference in terms of any potential law. So I guess my question is, along the spectrum from speaking to people on the street to paying for a Superbowl ad designed to get votes for a specific party - where do you draw the line?
