Skip to main content

View Diary: FEC rules—against their will—that DOMA bars gay couples from certain joint political donations (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What if you're not gay and you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    want to give joint credit to a friend for the donation?

    •  I presume this has to do with marital status (8+ / 0-)

      So, regardless of your sexual orientation, I likewise presume you could not make a donation in the manner a (heterosexual) married couple currently can.

      One thing which is not clear from the context, either above or as I've read elsewhere, if this situation pertains specifically to married couples who make a joint donation from an individual bank account or whether it applies to donations from joint accounts as well. On the one hand it would seem to follow; if the law prohibits acknowledging a same-sex marriage for one set of purposes it is almost certain to prohibit acknowledging a same-sex marriage for other similar purposes as well. Either way of course DOMA is simultaneously vile, hateful, discriminatory and stupid. And, as Hunter points out, it serves no legitimate government purpose unless intentional discrimination based on sexual orientation can somehow be viewed as a legitimate government purpose (a view which I'm quite certain Antonin Scalia would be absolutely okay with).

      •  A joint bank account is considered to be (0+ / 0-)

        property of both individuals regardless of marital status.  So I assume a donation from a joint bank account would be allowed to be split even if the individuals are not married.

        One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!) SSP: wmlawman

        by AUBoy2007 on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 01:45:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Poor straight troll (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah, compare wanting to split a tax donation with a friend to being denied marriage benefits do to Congressional Animus.   That's sweet.

      Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

      by lostboyjim on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 10:57:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uh...what? I think inclusiveheart (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        commonmass, inclusiveheart

        was just asking a question...

        •  I was asking a question. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe, misslegalbeagle, elfling

          It was both a practical question and a question that I think basically illustrates how stupid DOMA and this ruling are.

          Let's just say that my best friend and I are supporting the same candidate and my friend doesn't have the money to donate but I do...  Would we be allowed to donate together from the same bank account?  AND if for some reason we started sleeping together how would that in any rational world change the terms of the donation?

          •  That's exactly what I thought you meant. :) nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
          •  This is about more than having (0+ / 0-)

            a like-minded friend or even sleeping together.
            This was a couple married under state law. So unless you and your friend happened to be married, there is no parallel.

            •  Well, actually I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              What the FEC has said in effect is that people can't donate to their candidates based on their sexual orientation and because they are married to someone of the same sex.  It is certainly an infringement of freedom of speech as defined by Citizens United - and freedom of association - and discriminatory - especially if there is no prohibition against me and a friend of the same sex getting together to make a joint donation.

              Furthermore, it seems to undercut the whole objective of Campaign Finance reporting laws which were created to regulate and to track contributions to candidates.   If only one member of a married couple can take credit for a donation and the other is a participant in earning those funds, then the whole point of campaign finance laws has been upended.  

              The ruling and DOMA as I said before are nonsense both from a practical standpoint and by any measure of our democratic political freedom as outlined in the Constitution.

              My father would go farther here and say that all campaign finance laws are a total waste of time and to a degree I agree with him with the exception that reporting donations and having that transparency is really important.

              •  No, not exactly. (0+ / 0-)

                Unless I'm missing something, it says that one form of payment (splitting payments from an individual checking account) is available only to legally married heterosexual couples.  Legally married homosexual couples are free to donate to the candidates of their choice, but must use individual checks or (I presume) checks drawn on a joint checking account.

                This problem could easily be solved with no change in the law simply by refusing to split any checks that are not drawn on a joint account.  That's why, whatever may be wrong about the FEC rule, freedom of speech is not the problem.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:40:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  You've completely read my (0+ / 0-)

        question the wrong way.  Entirely missed the point.

        Also I almost never hide comments, but I'm really tempted to do so as you have insulted straight people which is kind of bullshit if you really believe that people should not be judged or in anyway discounted based on whom they choose to sleep with, love or marry.

        Not helpful to the cause to belittle anyone for their sexual preferences - really hypocritical, actually - unless you believe that the only way to get freedom and equality for the LGBT community is by ending heterosexual relationships - and then you give credence to the morons who claim that LGBT rights threaten heterosexual marriage and relationships.  See how that works?

        •  Duh (0+ / 0-)

          What you want is heterosexual control and privilege.  Equality means everyone is treated the same.  There are two ways to do it: allow equality of same sex relationships I.e. marriage, or removing the special privilege to heterosexual marriage.  Your choice.

          You want your privilege but no one else's. that is the problem.

          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

            That's what you think?

            You have no clue who I am.  It might behoove you to read a bit about me - nothing stopping you from clicking on my name and reading my very long comment history here.

            I may not be communicating my disdain for this ruling and DOMA adequately enough for you to get why I asked my initial question, but that doesn't give you the right to accuse me of some evil heterosexual plan - which is pure fantasy on your part by the way - nor does this issue give you the right to go after heterosexuals for being heterosexual - this is the problem with stupid people - they all think that they have a right to belittle someone - personally I don't give a shit whom you choose to marry or have sex with - I care whether or not you are a nice person and with respect to the laws of this country, I care about everyone being treated equally and fairly under the law.  The fact that people make distinctions on the equality front for any reason is a completely foreign mindset to me.

          •  Boy, are you misreading the commenter (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            If anybody needs to be called up short with a "duh" it's not him/her.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 12:38:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Snark tag? (0+ / 0-)

            Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

            by raincrow on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:11:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Frankly... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...I fail to see any point whatsoever to your question or any relationship between you question and this diary.

          The issue is about campaign finance law as it applies to legally married couples who make joint campaign contributions.  And the fact is that the law treats legally married same-sex couples differently from their heterosexual counterparts, which is rank discrimination.

          To ask a question about friends making joint donations seems to me a trivialization of this discrimination.  While it may not have been your intent, my reaction to your question was the same as Lostboy's apparent reaction, which was the feeling that you were somehow equating that married same-sex couple with two platonic friends wanting to make a joint donation.

          Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

          by TexasTom on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 10:23:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Little too loose with the "troll" allegation (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        misslegalbeagle, jayden, skrekk, Overseas

        inclusiveheart is a long time community member with a decent track record, so your insult is unjustified, unkind, and unfair.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 11:25:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hoo boy. Dim. (0+ / 0-)

        Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

        by raincrow on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 07:11:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site