Those with real institutional power and privilege are not afraid of being punished for telling lies. Those with real institutional power and privilege are not afraid of retribution from the baying mobs for expressing “incorrect” ideas. Clearly, those with real institutional power and privilege in California want to out the thought criminals who dare to contribute to the free expression of doubleplusungood ideas when it comes to candidates and ballot measures…
The California Legislative counsel’s digest describes AB 249, in part:
“The act also requires advertisements, as defined, to include prescribed disclosure statements, including, among others, a requirement that the disclosure statements include the names of the persons who made the 2 highest cumulative contributions, as defined, to the committee paying for the advertisement.
“…
“The bill would define ‘top contributors’ for purposes of these provisions as the persons from whom the committee paying for the advertisement received its 3 highest cumulative contributions, as specified.”
The retort will obviously be that only nefarious people with nefarious machinations would have something to hide.
This, however, is a view of those with real institutional power and privilege who can say what they want with full impunity throughout broader scope of society.
Who else might not want their name known?
Those who justifiably fear not only retribution from neighbors and bosses, but from the various minions of the vindictive Left who are more than willing to target and destroy anyone and everyone who dares utter a dissenting voice, via “doxxing” and even more truly nefarious means and machinations.
This bill clearly targets those without institutional power and privilege, and thus can be considered to be veritably oppressive, and thus truly socially injust.
Freedom is racist!
Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose.
Pingback: California trying to eliminate anonymous political donations
I appreciate your need to spend the first paragraph fustigating against our oppressors, but I wish a little more energy was devoted to explaining the bill and a little less on reminding us those guys are assholes.
Does this apply to print ads, or all media? If it includes TV, are they now gonna have to be like drug commercials where 60% of the ad is devoted to explanations and disclaimers?
And the bill states “disclosure statements include the names of the persons who made the 2 highest cumulative contributions,” but then later refers to the “3 highest cumulative contributions.” Which is it?
Frankly, I’m sick of anonymous political discourse. I don’t like it when WaPo uses “anonymous sources;” I don’t like the antifa masks; I don’t like it when online trolls claim Trump ate their baby in Moscow.
If this bill can help expose dicks like George Soros and California’s Tom Steyer, then sign me up. But you may argue, those guys can shield their participation through layers of intermediaries and misdirection. Well, so can we.
And if we don’t have the courage to stand behind our convictions, what good are we? See what fifty years of lurking in the shadows has got us.
Is that brief moment of open defiance worth not only your own relegation, but to the potential detriment of others who share your views?
this is absurdly simple to circumvent. what simpletons.
I may have to legally change my name to “Heywood Jablowmee” and start donating to political campaigns in California.
Pingback: Progressive Privilege of Privacy | The Political Hat