Sorry, I thought this discussion was on a different post. You're right, the argument above doesn't apply to Stripe.

Instead, I would respond that freedom of association is considerably more limited than other rights. Soldiers, students, jurors, prisoners, etc are often forced into association with people they would rather not associate with, and businesses are legally forced into association to protect the rights of other people. When there is a conflict between freedom of association and other rights or government interests, freedom of association rarely prevails.

So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous.

>So forcing businesses to associate with someone in order to protect fair elections or free speech rights wouldn't be incongruous.

A fair point. How would you apply that in this case?

I'm not being snarky, I just don't see the relevance of applying your (correct in certain circumstances) reasoning in this particular case.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the details of this case, so I won't speculate about how this case might be resolved under current law.

But the general principle I would apply here is that people who own important infrastructure shouldn't be allowed to interfere in elections (Trump 2024 in this case, I assume) by refusing to allow candidates to use that infrastructure.

I don't think that's controversial in the case of, say, electricity or phone service, and it seems reasonable to apply it to payment processing as well.

Your argument makes little or no sense to me.

1. When it comes to political actors, forcing a person or organization to support a specific candidate (who isn't even on any ballot at the moment) amounts to political coercion and is antithetical to a free society;

2. Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that?

3. Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly. In fact, Stripe is just one of many players in that market[0];

4. Not only does the Donald Trump Campaign (a specific "candidate") have other options for online payment processing, online payment processing is not the only way to collect donations. As such, in addition to the dozens of other payment processors on the market, Bank transfers, Western Union, Zelle, CashApp, old fashioned checks and money orders, cash etc., etc., etc. are also available.

You've got this all backwards. Political activity/speech is strongly protected in the US -- no just positive activity/speech, but negative activity/speech as well.

And if the government can force Stripe (or you or me) to provide support to a political actor, then all of our rights are being impinged.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_payment_service...

I'm not comfortable with the idea of "reverse boycotts", in which businesses can hinder candidates by denying them services. That gives business owners far too much power over elections (and Citizens United already gives them too much, IMO). I want democracy, not plutocracy.

> Which candidate do you hate the most? If what you were saying was reasonable, then you could be forced to provide material support for that candidate. How would you feel about that?

Absolutely fine, if that "material support" was merely providing the same business I provide everyone else, at the usual cost. To me, paid services are not "material support", a phrase I would only use to describe in-kind contributions (that is, services provided for free).

And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics. What's backwards about expecting big tech to act like other businesses?

> Stripe is not a utility like electricity or the phone company. Nor are they anywhere close to a monopoly... [candidates] have other options for online payment processing

That's an important point, and here's the rule I would propose to account for it: treat refusing to do business with a candidate while doing business with their opponent as an in-kind contribution to their opponent. If the cost of finding an alternative is small, denying services will be allowed as a small in-kind contribution.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm talking about how I think things should work, not what the current law is, but I believe that's the legal principle behind the Equal-Time Rule, so it's not entirely legally unprecedented.

>And 99% of businesses already act that way. The local office supply store doesn't discriminate based on politics.

That's as may be. However, US Federal law doesn't require them to service anyone except in specific circumstances[0].

There are some state laws that extend to political affiliation, but that's almost always just in employment decisions and not B2B transactions.

If you think the law is wrong (I do not), you can advocate for changing the laws. I won't support your efforts, but I will and do support your right to do so.

Which is what you seem to want taken away from others.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

> I will and do support your right to do so. Which is what you seem to want taken away from others.

I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away. I just don't want the weight of their opinion to be related to how much they own.

>I certainly don't want anyone's right to political activity to be taken away.

How else can forcing people to provide support (whether that support is compensated or not) for a political entity be interpreted?

Doing so would reduce the political rights of those affected.

And reducing those rights for to one group means they can do that to you or to me. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy. For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts".

>Are campaign finance limits taking away people's political rights? I suppose they are, relative to unlimited rights, but I still think they are necessary because they they tilt the balance toward democracy instead of plutocracy.

Actually, I think campaign finance limits expand political rights as it gives more people a more equal say. In fact, I support banning campaign contributions altogether and moving to publicly financed campaigns.

Because that not only gives more people a more equal voice, it also gives more people the opportunity to run competitive campaigns without deep-pocketed supporters and/or deep-pocketed political parties.

>For the same reason, I'm opposed to unlimited in-kind contributions, and also to censorship and "reverse boycotts".

I'm also opposed to the first two. Quite strongly, in fact.

As to the first, I have no problem with volunteering (time is a resource and, as such, could be considered an "in-kind" contribution but I'm okay with that) or using one's own resources (cars, phone minutes, electricity, etc.) while volunteering, but not much beyond that.

As to the second, censorship (that is, government censorship) is always wrong. However, private persons or groups have every right to control their freedom of association and the speech they allow on their property.

However, I'm not really clear on what you mean by a "reverse boycott."

I'll hazard a guess that you mean multiple product/service providers refusing to do business with a specific customer. If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I can fully agree.

Not because I don't believe in freedom, but just the opposite. Because forcing anyone to associate with someone they don't want to associate with (within the limits set out for protected classes[0]) reduces the freedom of those being forced.

And I believe that to be especially true when it comes to political actors and issues. Primarily because forcing someone to support political speech/beliefs/actions with which they disagree is an affront to our free society and the ideals of free association and political choice.

My apologies If I misunderstand how you define "reverse boycott," and I'd appreciate being corrected.

Thanks.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

Edit: Added the missing link.