ABC: BUSH-CHENEY RE-ELECT NEW (Listing of Donors)

I understand what you're both talking about and you have valid points. Bush has always stated a belief in full disclosure. He never wanted CFR or any regulations on money in politics-- just full disclosure. I guess he thinks this is a part of it. You still would have to search the database, though. It won't be one big table.

petitfour said: "It is consequential to those who want to keep their lives private. "

The only way that the Supreme Court will be forced to clarify the Second Amendment is through enforcement of clearly unConstitutional gun-control laws.

In a similar fashion, unConstitutional invasions of privacy, which force people to identify their support for candidates and issues, will require substantial invasions of privacy before such issues reach the highest court.

Fabulous! I shall look for my listing!

Bump.

~Here's an op-ed article I wrote that got published in a few major papers around the country a few years ago:

In the ongoing public discourse about campaign finance reform, almost everyone seems to agree on at least one principle: that greater and more immediate disclosure of political campaign contributions is both necessary and desirable. Interestingly, many of the politicians who are most vociferous in their support for increased campaign finance disclosure are the same ones clamoring most loudly for heightened protections of Internet privacy.

Senator John McCain, for instance, known for his hard-line stance on campaign finance reform, is the chief sponsor of a bill seeking “To protect the privacy of consumers who use the Internet” by restricting the collection of “personally identifiable information.” George W. Bush’s campaign trumpets the fact that its donors are listed on its web site, and Bush himself said, “I believe in as much disclosure as possible.” Yet in an interview with online media outlet ZDNet, Bush stated, “I think there ought to be laws that say a company cannot use my information without my permission. We can live in a private world.”

Living in such a “private world,” however, already seems impossible. Campaign donations as small as $200 will land one’s personal information on the Internet. In some states, even smaller donations (the Illinois campaign site lists over 3,000 citizens who donated $25 or less, for example) will mean your participation in the political process may also end your privacy. You may not realize it, but when you contribute to a candidate for national office, your street address, employer, and job title are by law reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which then publishes the data on its website (other sites such as www.fecinfo.com also repackage these data). Since archives are available on the web going back to 1980, it’s fairly easy to determine donors’ career paths (by looking at the employers and job titles over the years), where they’ve lived, and whom they’ve supported for office.

No donor is immune. Searches based on employer are possible, and thus a pro-life boss could find out with a single click all employees who support pro-choice candidates. Or vice versa. A non-union employer could determine which of its workers have given even relatively modestly to pro-labor candidates or political action committees (yes, PACs are tracked, too). And if one’s employer happened to be the U.S. Army, a contribution to an openly gay candidate could be construed as “telling,” a violation of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. No privacy for you, Private.

And remember, other information is also disclosed, including the unlisted addresses. For instance, a 1999 contribution caused a $16 billion household-name company’s CEO’s unlisted home address -- *** Island Drive, Rye, New York -- to become a matter of permanent public record. In 1989, an obsessed fan had to hire a private investigator to find actress Rebecca Schaeffer’s address before he could track her down and kill her. Today, all a stalker might need is AOL and the FEC.

We may live in a voyeuristic society where shows like Big Brother and Survivor are popular, but a $200 contribution shouldn’t put you in the national spotlight. That’s clearly not enough to influence a congressman or get you into the Lincoln bedroom, so public disclosure of such small contributions serves only voyeurs and snoops (and those building campaign or marketing mailing lists: while forbidden by law, little can be done to prevent this further affront to privacy). Yet some politicians believe that even the current $200 limit is too high. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington), for instance, wants them eliminated altogether. So while some Internet providers advertise that they’ll get you on the web for $9.95, Senator Murray will do it if you so much as buy a cup of coffee for your local candidate.

Almost amusingly, on its website (www.fec.gov), the Federal Election Commission has a very detailed “Privacy Statement” that concludes with the following ironic affirmation: “We do not track or record information about individuals, organizations or their visits.” Well, thank goodness for that. Assuredly, however, the FEC will continue to track and record information about individuals, organizations and their political contributions for all web visitors to see. Likewise, politicians and grassroots groups of all stripes will continue to champion even greater campaign finance disclosure. But as this debate unfolds, let’s not forget the simple underlying truth: that disclosure means information is disclosed.