(excerpt from) Ballot Access News
FEC Likely to Rule on Extension of Disclosure Exemption for Socialist Workers Party
March 15th, 2009
Within the next few weeks, it is likely that the Federal Election Commission will rule on a request by the Socialist Workers Party for an extension of its exemption from reporting who contributes to its federal campaigns.
The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1982 that small political parties that suffer from harassment from either government agencies, or from private individuals, should not be forced to disclose the identities of people who contribute money to such parties. The FEC has been granting an exemption to the Socialist Workers Party, but the exemptions always expire after six years…
Maybe, maybe not. That should be up to them to decide, not anyone else.
Government is not the only entity which can harass people.
It’s ironic that a libertarian would be telling that to a Green.
It seems odd to allow people to donate with no accountability.
Though, I understand the desire for privacy.
I think the desire for privacy should be paramount here. And not just for small parties. A Republican working in, say, the theater business may lose career opportunities if he is not allowed to keep his political identity private, just as a socialist might lose similar opportunities in football coaching, etc.
When people in the Green Party or peace movement try to invoke “privacy”, as if the government might be watching, some of us try to remind them: The government already knows. Might as well let everyone know and have transparency.
That only compounds the problem.
Dear Libertarian Girl,
It may have been slightly unfair of you to refer to me as:
“oh cranky one.”
(Even though I did jump in the way as you were so wonderfully challenging GG.)
But, wow! Very funny. And, you do have me pegged. Feeling extra cranky lately. I think it is one of the stages of grief after having left my party.
But, I do want to let you know that people far more eloquent than you have summarized my crankiness.
I took a master class in poetry. And, Mark Rudman, a famous poet, wrote as commentary on one of my poems: “Distemper is your muse.”
Hmmmm…
Maybe “Oh Cranky One” is easier to remember. I may put it in my bio.
Peace and giggles,
Kimberly
“Somehow, I have doubts that ANY SWP campaign has generated receipts over $5000, including their POTUS campaign.” – Steven R. Linnabary.
Actually, the Socialist Workers Party raised and spent $186,252 during the 1980 presidential campaign. Four years earlier, when the late Peter Camejo headed the party’s ticket, the party raised more than $151,000 — about a third of the amount raised by former Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy, who ran as an independent that year. In 1972, the SWP’s Linda Jenness, a little-known secretary from Atlanta, spent more than $118,000 in her bid for the presidency, or nearly three times the amount raised by Dr. Benjamin Spock, the famous pediatrician who headed the People’s Party ticket in that race. The SWP had hoped to raise a half-million dollars that year.
For those younger readers who may be curious about the SWP’s disclosure exemption, here’s a little background. Not unlike the Communist Party USA in the forties and fifties, the SWP had been subject to massive government harassment and intimidation for nearly four decades following its founding in 1938. The FBI admitted, in the mid-1970s, to burglarizing the party’s headquarters and that of its youth affiliate — the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) — in New York City on at least ninety-two occasions between 1960 and 1966. In some cases, other break-ins occurred at the homes of party members, as was the case of a 1960 burglary at the Los Angeles home of James P. Cannon, the party’s founder and national chairman.
Conducted under the guise of “national security,” those “black bag,” Watergate-style break-ins, which usually took place in the early morning hours, occurred on an almost regular basis over a 6 1/2 year period, enabling federal agents to not only collect the names and addresses of campaign contributors, but to also gather and photocopy documents and correspondence involving virtually every aspect of the party’s activities, including the party’s defense strategies in pending federal legal cases.
Bugging and wiretapping of the party’s offices and telephone lines by federal authorities was also common during that period, as were occasional fire-bombings and attacks on various SWP offices across the country by a sundry of right-wing groups, including an arson raid by Cuban exiles on the party’s Los Angeles headquarters in 1970.
Relying on informants and provocateurs to disrupt party activities, federal and local authorities also routinely infiltrated the SWP and the YSA during that period, collecting the names of party activists and supporters. The party’s candidates and their supporters were frequently visited by FBI agents, as were, in some cases, their employers and landlords. In one highly-publicized case, the FBI questioned the principal of a 16-year-old high school student who had sent a letter to the YSA as part of a social studies project.
Kimberly–
Of course the FBI and other agencies are spying on the LEADERS of the opposition. That we should all expect, and act accordingly.
OTOH, the people that are helping us might not want the added attention that giving can bring. It doesn’t matter what they are doing that they want kept secret.
Considering how much harder it is today to petition that it was just a few years ago, I would think that you could understand. A few years ago I had NEVER been told that somebody did not want to sign a petition because they didn’t want to end up on a government list. Today it is commonplace.
The harassment that some Mormons are receiving from admittedly a minority of the gay activists in California can have a very chilling effect on political discourse.
I wouldn’t want MY supporters to be harassed and threatened on the street because they didn’t support the democrats (or republicans) “People’s candidate du jour”.
OTOH, I can take it, and have been taking ridicule for my positions for years. And I’m probably already on some government watch list. That’s not paranoia, but reality.
And I’ll continue to protect my supporters with anonymity as much as I can.
PEACE
*
KW_: That is a different argument than what you said. “You have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide.” That is not what I was saying, anyway.
Um hello the little GG indicates I was responding to Greg Garrit. his whole sentenve is as follows ::
GG:_Of course government harassment is wrong, But the best protection is to have nothing to hide.
he’s referring to government harassment and not having anything to hide from them
pretty straight forward to me
wasnt talking about donor lists or excomm meetings oh cranky one.
Hi, Libertarian Girl –
I am not sure if you got one point myself and others raised.
The point is: The government already has spies inside third parties. If there is a conference call of a national party, the government probably already taps the line. So, the part might as well let its meeting open to its own grassroots. If the government knows already, better than more of your own people are aware.
One reason to remind people of this argument, is so that people in a national party can’t play games and hide decisions from their own party members, pretending that they are hiding from bad people in the government. The bad people in the government already know.
Similar for donors.
If the socialist party hides its donor lists from campaign finance reports, then they are hiding the list from the general public. But, you know what, if the government wants to know who contributed (and they probably do), the government will spy and figure it out. So, you might as well make it more public. That gives you the cloak of numbers, of being in the open, of more people being aware.
I am less afraid of a person in the street attacking me because I am a socialist, than I am afraid that when the government learns I am a socialist, they will figure out a way to set me up, spy on me, or thwart my plans.
That is a different argument than what you said. “You have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide.” That is not what I was saying, anyway.
GG:_Of course government harassment is wrong, But the best protection is to have nothing to hide.
oh god , not the ole ‘you have nothin to worry about if you have nothing to hide’ clich’e.
more tyranny has come with that saying as a precursor then any other cliche i can think of!
ugh , that is one sentence that really makes me mad
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Greg Gerritt asking for transparency and accountability.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Now, will show people the list where you put yourself down as a consultant on troublesome people.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
No exceptions. Everyone should be proud to contribute and proud to have it part of the public record. Of course government harassment is wrong, But the best protection is to have nothing to hide. The SWP should have its donors listed as the best way to keep the government power to harass in check.
A few years ago here in Ohio, the LPO was mocking a local Sheriff in his campaign to harass adult bookstores. This Sheriff went to the Secretary of State’s office demanding to know who was supporting the LPO.
He learned that because the State of Ohio does not recognize the LP, there was no way to demand who was supporting it. This Sheriff from then on referred to the LP as an “illegal political party”.
More recently in California, proponents (or maybe it was the opponents) of Prop 8 have been threatened and harassed. The names of these individuals were on file with the authorities, and made the harassment easy.
I would not want any of MY supporters to be harassed (or denied a government job) because of any contributions they had made to my campaign. Therefore, I refused to file with the FEC. The fact that the reporting requirement is triggered at $5000 is irrelevant. I’d rather the FEC prove I had spent more than that amount.
Somehow, I have doubts that ANY SWP campaign has generated receipts over $5000, including their POTUS campaign. Unless they are including ballot access (extortion) and attorney fees.
PEACE
Maybe the LP, or at least LP Missouri, should try to get this now that they’ve been linked to the “modern militia movement.”
What if John McCain, in order to try and thwart Obama in 2008, had dumped a million dollars to create and fund a party such as “We Love Chicago” to try to compete with Obama.
What if he had? Don’t you think such a thing would have backfired? Secrecy and conspiracy is a non-starter at that level.
Should there be no record for something like that?
What makes you think there is a faithful record of his donations and expenses? You trust him? The very fact that a law exists?
Furthermore, if donations should be private, then let ALL donations to ALL parties be private.
Here we agree.
What if John McCain, in order to try and thwart Obama in 2008, had dumped a million dollars to create and fund a party such as “We Love Chicago” to try to compete with Obama. Should there be no record for something like that?
Political donations are only reportable over a certain amount. Small donors can give anonymously. But, when people start throwing money around in politics, the money is usually gotten by exploitation, and meant to influence politicians.
Furthermore, if donations should be private, then let ALL donations to ALL parties be private.
No special privileges.
Also, Kimberly – you say ‘with no accountability’. I just twigged on that. I agree absolutely that there should be ‘accountability’ – but I suspect that we may disagree on to whom the accountability should be. I say that it should be to the membership of the Party, not to the merely curious or downright hostile folks not actively engaged with the Party.
It seems odd to allow people to donate with no accountability.
Why, exactly? A political party is (or ought to be) a private organization. Why should donations to a political party be any more public than donations to, say, a battered-women’s shelter?
How about the Libertarians and CP, too?
This story is very interesting to me. And, I can see many sides and angles about what is the correct thing to do.
It seems odd to allow people to donate with no accountability.
Though, I understand the desire for privacy. If the Socialist Workers deserve privacy in who donates, who else does? Perhaps the privacy should be attached to “being small”? So, that you only do not have to disclose if your federal candidate clearly gains less than 20% in the polls? (But, how could you do that – by looking backwards? Or, you get less than 20% and you don’t report for the next race?)
I will say that there is one part of it that is problematic. When people in the Green Party or peace movement try to invoke “privacy”, as if the government might be watching, some of us try to remind them: The government already knows. Might as well let everyone know and have transparency.
Will be interesting to see the outcome of the FEC decision.