Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (6165)	7/9/2000 10:12:47 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

More OT (hey, it's a weekend): If they lied under oath in public court they should get the same as the President - though we should doubt anything ever happens to the %%%%. No, they lied under oath while testifying before Congress. That's where the irony comes from. And people have been prosecuted for doing that. They just tend not to be people who funnel millions to the member's campaign chests. You would prefer something far more socialist or communist - we can guess... Guess away, but you'd be wrong. What I'd prefer is a complete repeal of the Watergate era campaign finance laws and an acknowledgement that they have made things worse, not better. The intent of the laws was noble, eliminate the corrupting influence of money from the political process. It's obvious that this has failed spectacularly. I also believe that the campaign finance reformers are missing the broader implications of this. Any law that is written to limit campaign contributions will have loopholes. The ruling parties will find those loopholes, take advantage of them, and effectively fight any attempts to close them once they are discovered. IMO, the only answer to the whole mess is to remove all limits on campaign contributions. The only rule should be that all contributions to political candidates, interest groups, etc. be disclosed immediately. If there is full disclosure, the court of public opinion can handle it from there. If news of a publicly traded company which is engaged in illegal activities with company funds & tax dollars comes forward - it should be broadly reported by all involved in business news If it's proven, or there's an indictment yes. But that story you cited was nothing but implication and innuendo. It is not legitimate business news. Since you seem hungry for influence peddling stories, and the tobacco companies don't seem to interest you, here's another piece of fertile ground to plow. How about taking a look at what's going on in the office of the Majority Whip? If you look hard, you should definitely find a story there. I look forward to seeing you on Hardball. <g>