Supporting a US Presidential Candidate: Right or Wrong?

dahamsta

I've been considering donating money to a candidate for the presidency of the United States. By US law, only citizens or a "permanent resident aliens" are allowed donate to campaign funds, but it's easy to step around this by simply giving the money to a citizen and asking them to donate it on your behalf. For that matter, there's nothing stopping someone buying an American vote, as long as you understand that you have no way of actually knowing if they followed through on their promise. However let's concentrate on the former for the moment.

I'm considering this because I feel that America has a strong impact on everything we do. The authoritarian behaviour of the Bush administration has somehow made it ok for certain governments to trample on their citizens rights, and for certain corporations to push their snouts further into the trough. One example of government behaviour is the decision of the Irish Cabinet to direct ISPs to retain Internet traffic data without subpoena. An example of corporate behaviour is the constant push for revocation of technological rights, such as the right to copy a CD for personal use (DRM) or buy from a supplier of your choice (CD Wow, for example).

Although I don't doubt that I would be affected today even if Gore had taken the presidency that is rightfully his, I do doubt that it would be quite as bad as it is today. The Democrats are nearly as bad as the Republicans, but that "nearly" would be enough to get my vote. So, considering that the law sometimes needs to be broken to make a statement (civil disobedience); and that I'm not an American anyway, so I can't be bound their laws; on a moral and ethical level: Would it be right or wrong to make a donation to a American presidential candidate?

When you're finished with the donation aspect, feel free to apply the same considerations to the topic of buying a vote.

adam

sk_irl

yea by all means you should support a candidate in the US elections. The only problem would be that unless you are planning on supporting the democratic candidate (I assume you dont want to suupot Bush) then your money will be wasted and you would be better of giving it to a charity that needs it.
Oh and as regards the copying of CDs. Does any one else think that it's rather ironic that the newest EU law on this subject is virtually the exact same as the American digital mellenium act (excuse me if the name of that act is wrong?

dahamsta

I think calling the election this early is illogical to be honest. Sure you can make predictions based on currently available information, but you have no idea what will happen in the coming weeks and months. As to the EUCD, it's a very important issue but I'd appreciate if this thread stayed on-topic.

adam

sk_irl

I do agree with you that it is a little early to predict outcomes, but in all likelyhood it will be a two horse race. and as for it not being predictaable, well then would that not mean that there is no point in you investing money in one of the candidates at this stage if it's still so unpredictable?

seamus

I don't see why not. America has been influencing the elections (or appointments of new leaders) of many other countries for decades.

As you've quite rightly pointed out, the actions of America tends to influence most of the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no need for half of Sky News to dedicated to what the U.S. is doing. Who would care? If you think that one candidate will be a better influence on our leaders, I would say you'd be dead right to support them.

Capt'n Midnight

How about EU voting observers ?

Or a system of tallymen - count voters entering the stations and see do the numbers add up.

BTW: one of the reasons that half of SKY is dedicated to US is that its cheaper to use existing reports and opinions from it's sister networks :rolleyes:

Would assisination not be more cost effective ?

BattleBoar

I believe the spirit of the legislation preventing donations from foreign sources was to prevent foreign governments from having undue influence upon a particular candidate. This is not what you have described at all. You are donating to a candidate because you disagree with the policies of Bush, not because you want to influence the decisions of a president from foreign soil.

So personally, I see nothing wrong with your donation. Support the candidate whose platform you most believe in, but remember, the eventual goal should be the removal of Bush from office, which means electibility, which in my mind, means Wesley Clark...the only candidate among the field who I would say has a better than 50/50 shot at beating Bush in an election.

Bush will try to run the election on a platform of national security first and foremost. This will be far less effective against a former four-star general than it would be against, say, Howard Dean.

sovtek

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Would assisination not be more cost effective ?

Maybe but you're going to need alot of bullets. Remember Bush is just a incompetent, idiotic, spoiled, doped up figurehead.

Merrion

My instinct is to say that it is wrong. Consider how you would feel about a non Irish citizen donating to a political party in Ireland.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Merrion
My instinct is to say that it is wrong. Consider how you would feel about a non Irish citizen donating to a political party in Ireland.

I'd feel differently depending on the circumstances to be honest. If it was some rich muppet trying to make himself even richer, I'd be pretty annoyed. However it it was just some regular Joe trying to protect his own rights and stop himself getting poorer, that'd be a different story. I reckon I fit into the latter category.

adam

Meh

Originally posted by dahamsta
on a moral and ethical level: Would it be right or wrong to make a donation to a American presidential candidate?

On a practical level, your donation may actually end up damaging your candidate. There was a scandal in 1996 about Clinton accepting money from foreign donors

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf020498.htm

Maybe you'd be better off donating to interest groups like the ACLU or EFF instead?

dahamsta

Originally posted by Meh
On a practical level, your donation may actually end up damaging your candidate. There was a scandal in 1996 about Clinton accepting money from foreign donors

Heh, small bit of a difference there Meh.

Maybe you'd be better off donating to interest groups like the ACLU or EFF instead?

I'll be donating to the EFF anyway, but that's a pretty indirect route.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Actually it was MoveOn that I was initially going to donate to, however they don't allow donations from non-citizens. Perhaps this provision was added recently, but I'm almost certain I checked out the donations page months ago and I was unable to donate then too.

adam

uaobrien

Originally posted by sovtek
Maybe but you're going to need alot of bullets. Remember Bush is just a incompetent, idiotic, spoiled, doped up figurehead.

Hehehehe wanna be careful sovtek, the N.S.A. are listening

uaobrien

Originally posted by dahamsta
I've been considering donating money to a candidate for the presidency of the United States. By US law, only citizens or a "permanent resident aliens" are allowed donate to campaign funds, but it's easy to step around this by simply giving the money to a citizen and asking them to donate it on your behalf. For that matter, there's nothing stopping someone buying an American vote, as long as you understand that you have no way of actually knowing if they followed through on their promise. However let's concentrate on the former for the moment.

adam

My take on the situation is, you want to support a candidate of any govt. then be prepared to be responsible for their actions. Because like it or not, when your candidate screws up (hopefully they won't) you helped put them there.

With regard to a foreign govt. I would say its better to stick to home sponsorship. America is the most powerful nation in the world today. You're absolutely right about the influence they retain on global politics. But Americans contribute to politicians because they know that at the end of the day, there is (currently) a way in which their candidate and his party is ultimately answerable to them.

You don't have that luxury. If your candidate decides to spend their presidency screwing up the world more than Bush did, they won't have to answer to you. You won't even be a blip on their radar. Yet, you will be partly responsible for their actions.

At the end of the day, you'll do what you feel is right, but I would think long and hard before supporting any foreign govt.

dahamsta

Excellent point uaobrien.

Victor

I don't think there is a huge problem with one individual contributing a modest amount to a campaign. The systematic use of this or the donation of very large amounts by individuals or groups is wrong. That said, it is the recipient country has to deal with the winning donor recipient to the largest degree - what if Irish people all donated €10 to only one of the parties in Andorra?

Note the Sinn Féin is still engaged in fund raising / really expensive dinners in the USA, even though foreign donations are illegal in both the UK and Ireland. So if Americans can interfere in our electoral process .... gesse and ganders come to mind.

Geromino

Originally posted by dahamsta
Actually it was MoveOn that I was initially going to donate to, however they don't allow donations from non-citizens. Perhaps this provision was added recently, but I'm almost certain I checked out the donations page months ago and I was unable to donate then too.

adam

The McCain-Feingold Act is what you are looking for. However, I would be very weary in donating to any political party of any foreign government. I do not contribute to any foreign government, whehter it is legal or illegal. I do contribute to political organizations (about $500/yr) that I deem worthy in my own country.