I.R.S. Will No Longer Force Kochs and Other Groups to Disclose Donors | Hacker News Reader

I.R.S. Will No Longer Force Kochs and Other Groups to Disclose Donors

nytimes.com

31 pointsclumsysmurf14 comments

I think the title is a little loaded. I give to a lot of groups, I don’t want my name on a list that the government or the public can get their hands on. Imagine if during the civil rights era, people who gave money to anti-segregation organizations risk having their names made public just because they donated? Pick a cause. Donor information should be confidential because it’s no one‘s business where the money is going. Whether you’re warren Buffett, Michael Moore or anybody

I strongly disagree that it's no one's business where that money is going. That money is used to influence public policy, which can have a very real effect on me and my life. I think it should be very public knowledge that, a group that is advocating against climate change, for instance, be required to disclose that all of it's major donors are members of the oil and gas industry.

I think this idea of unlimited dark money coming into our elections to influence policy is absolutely terrifying, and without knowing who is giving the money, combating the influence of these groups is much, much more difficult.

Every time you give to MoveOn.org or similar organizations, that money is doing the exact same thing. Let's turn this around for a moment. That donation you gave to the ACLU, or Black Lives Matter... If it's public, or in a way that can be made public, then as an employer I can use that to disqualify you from a job. As an apartment complex, I can find subtle ways to dissuade you from living there, such as a higher rent, or other fees. I can use my political bias against you, just because you gave to a group I don't like. If I can do that, why can't you do that to me?

By keeping donor information private, no one can weaponize that information, and no one can use it to discriminate. Do we really want people harassing one another in public, or worse, for whom they give to? Who I support, who I give money to, is no ones business but mine, and the organization I give it to, because at the end of the day I don't want you to harass me, and come after me because you disagree.

First of all, I wholeheartedly reject the idea that giving to a civil rights organization should be treated the same as giving to an organization meant to downplay climate change.

Second, without the information that large, rich people and organizations are the ones behind these groups, their message changes. And again, it is not "no one's business but yours," because those things that you are advocating for affect me. Those laws you're fighting to enact or repeal affect me. So no, it is not just your business.

/First of all, I wholeheartedly reject the idea that giving to a civil rights organization should be treated the same as giving to an organization meant to downplay climate change./

Only because YOU believe it. Others don't agree with you, and therein lies the problem: You wish to weaponize data against people because you disagree with them. You're taking this much too personally, which signals that you have an emotional fixation on a specific ideology, or position, and anger at those who you disagree with. That's not how a democracy works.

No, because it is correct. I do not buy for one single second this idea that all opinions are equally valid and equally deserving. That is patently false, and I will not fall into the trap of false equivalence.

It seems from the public’s perspective, the only piece of information that will no longer available is how many donors there are and at what amount. The public was never getting a donor list except in unauthorized disclosures.

The article also does not state why the IRS would need to know who the donor is?

Can someone shed some light here?

By investing even more money in politics, rich people are making it so dysfunctional that the system will all come crashing down. At this point, we’re so close that whatever moderate reform could be pushed through would just allow the current system to limp along as is for decades. Therefore, I like that we are accelerating the decline by opening the money gates up even more:

This is a terrible, terrible decision. Knowing who's behind these groups is one of the only rays of sunshine that can be used to show a group's real motives. Not being able to tell where the money comes is going to make dark money have even more of an impact in our elections, and give the very wealthy even more control.

The only issue I see is money laundering. Under the First Amendment I could care less if Warren Buffett slaps a few billion down on a campaign. What I do care about is quid pro quo using donations to launder money into the coffers of purported campaign contractors.

What you care about, and what the public has a right to know, don't have to be the same.

See, I completely disagree. I don't believe the first amendment means that money is speech, nor that a rich person is entitled to more speech than anyone else.

> “Americans shouldn’t be required to send the I.R.S. information that it doesn’t need to effectively enforce our tax laws, and the I.R.S. simply does not need tax returns with donor names and addresses to do its job in this area,” Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, said in a statement on Monday evening.

In light of the Trump Foundation charity shenanigans, is this even remotely true?

Hell, in light of the factory that the NRA was caught colluding with a Russian National, it's very much not true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com