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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133978)	3/28/2001 8:37:13 PM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 769667

<Political influence can obviously be purchased, else why are the millions being funneled?/> I may be naive in this point of view, but I agree with everything President Bush said about campaign finance during his Presidential campaign. We do not need new laws that violate the Bill of Rights in order to limit corruption in our political system. What we do need is full disclosure. And if you do not think disclosure matters, I can only say Marc Rich. Of course, disclosure was aided by a media, as it should be. But when political influence can be limited via financial contributions, media contributions become much more meaningful. So we can not count on the media to do their job and keep tabs on who is giving what to whom. So mandatory disclosures is a real and constitutional solution. This plan (MF) is unconstitutional. And combined with the edgy fear of a looming anti-liberalsim crisis, one can only wonder if this plan is nothing but another red-herring thrown out to further divide Americans, designed to guarantee opposition and then say the plan is opposed simply because it comes from the left.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (133978)	3/28/2001 9:20:05 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Frankly, Kevin, I'd call that post argument by smirking. It is definitely below your usual high standard. Well, these people have a huge amount of money to represent their self interests, which in many cases are not the majority interests of the people. So only the "majority interests of the people" are to be allowed to be presented to our legislators? I won't even get into who defines those because I disagree with it anyway. So atheists, nudists, Muslims, whatever are not to be allowed to present their case? Only representatives of the "majority interests of the people"? If that is the democracy you desire, you are welcome to it. And if I possess $100 million, my right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is revoked? I have no First Amendment rights? the givers are representatives. "People affected by government" That is certainly true. And that's why they do have First Amendment rights. This "campaign finance reform" is really a Trojan horse, isn't it? If donations are not to pay for campaigns, what will? The government, that's what. This is really another campaign to expand the power and INFLUENCE of the Federal Government and, also, yet another expensive liberal tax-and-spend campaign. They are the interests of the select few who have the money. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRUPTION. No, THIS is the definition of corruption. Main Entry: cor·rup·tion Pronunciation: k&-'r&p-sh&n Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : DEPRAVITY b : DECAY, DECOMPOSITION c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct 2 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts 3 chiefly dialect : PUS I'd say your after meaning 1c. But what is happening does not fit this definition. Campaign contributions are not unlawful. And if a legislator takes money in return for a vote, that is not what we are discussing here and in any case is already illegal.