|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics |
|
December 18, 2004Look Who's Watching You!A.C.L.U.'s Search for Data on Donors Stirs Privacy Fears Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? You just can't trust anyone nowadays. Posted by Tully at December 18, 2004 06:50 PMComments
Damn, that Spitzer guy won't given anyone a break!! Posted by: Chris at December 18, 2004 07:35 PMActually, I think this would be entirely reasonable if they were up front with it to their donors. It could be treated as an experiment to find out what's out there. They could mail their donors a report about "what's known about you" That would be a useful service, in fact. Kind of like getting your credit report. As a card carrying member of the ACLU (and yes, I am a Republican) I have personally thought that their fundraising efforts have gotten a bit ridiculous as of late. I am always getting calls for money although I do not make the income to warrant such attention... It is a little obnoxious. That been said I don't personally feel my right to privacy has been violated. I think the ACLU clearly has some organizational issues that has causes some bad decisions to be made, and I hope it gets worked out. I have passed Eliot Spitzer off as camera hog way too easily.... This guy seems to be for real. He is left me with the impression that he believes justice knows no boundaries, even if it is your friends who are breaking the law. Good for him. He will make an excellent Governor of New York. Posted by: Mathew at December 18, 2004 10:30 PMSpritzer is a media hound. He promised to go after our corrupt political system when he was elected. I can't recall any cases that made headlines involving him. However, he sure is out there when he takes down a Wall Street firm. BTW, that one insurance company he got to pay a fine to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars ended up laying off hundreds of people mainly because of the cost of the fine. Posted by: Donald at December 19, 2004 11:14 AMDonald, By your standard, there should never be any regulatory enforcement because it could cost jobs. The Enron employees ended up losing their jobs too. Your argument would simply be a license to break the law with impunity. Posted by: MWS at December 20, 2004 02:25 PMIf you think that fine was a job-killer, just wait for genuine health-care reform (though it might be a long wait.) One in five healthcare-related workers minimum are in the primary business of sorting, classifying, dodging, and denying payment responsibility. The ripples of any true single-payer and/or comprehensive coverage system would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work in the HC and insurance industries. And think of all the poor unemployed pharmaceutical reps if we ever adopted a national drug formulary! I enjoy seeing the sanctimonious ACLU get a little comeuppance. While the organization does some good, they have been entirely too willing to get involved in litigation to validate silly rights, e.g., people who wanted to withhold taxes from the Pentagon. Posted by: MWS at December 20, 2004 05:19 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|