To: hmaly who wrote (128683 ) 11/17/2000 12:54:07 PM From: TimF Respond to Most of the examples you state of having to pay for something you disagree with are not directly equivilent as they are not supporting a cause or candidate that you disagree with. In any case if you disagree with a particular policy or governemnt activity then you can oppose those things just as I oppose public funding of campaigns.Or how about union members being forced to support a candidate through their union dues even if they don't like their candidate. Politcal speech wouldn't be regulated. You can say anything you want. Just realize that if you start attacking someone, that person has the right to respond in the same add. Why, once again are you against fairness? You apparently agree that the politicians are taking money, and giving something back to the donors in the form of allocating their time for them. Isn't that the definition of bribery? You justify it by saying they have to; but why do things have to be that way. The politicians didn't have to 50 yrs ago before TV was invented. They don't have to now if we go to public financing. No doubt your intentions would start out that way, but what happens when The NRA gives you $20,000 and you need $300,000. Where do you get the rest of your money? If you want to win, you start begging; and if that isn't enough, you start making promises. And when you really get desperate you start renting out bedrooms; taking money from gun runners,drug dealers, special interests, foreign governments etc; just like Bill did. Where is it going to end?
