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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (43952)	2/9/2002 8:08:07 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

but I'm not sure it should be enforced on third parties The problem with meddling in any natural system is that we usually just push the problem around and often even make it worse. Put up any barrier and people find a way to get around it. If we require disclosure only from candidates and political parties, then donors can just quit giving money to candidates and parties and start spending it directly on ads that benefit the candidate, which avoids the disclosure but still buys the influence. It's like that regulation that banks have to report cash transactions of $10K, so the crooks do business in $9K increments. If we're going to meddle, lets meddle enough to fix the problem, not just change its manifestation. If we can't fix it in an acceptable way, then let's let nature take its course. As for campaigns spending less - I'm not sure that this is always a good idea...because if less money is spent the less known candidates may have problems getting noticed I think that's a bigger problem the more candidates spend. If there's a spending war, only the richest can compete. If one candidate buys Super Bowl ads, then everyone has to to compete. I don't know how much that expensive stuff really enlightens the electorate. The best way to inform us is with resumes, position papers, and debates, which are all really cheap. Dueling negative ads, or even positive ones, cost a lot of money and provide little insight into the candidate. I'd bet we could have a useful Presidential campaign on a budget of just a few of million per candidate if there were any practical way or putting them on an austerity budget and we would end up with a fuller understanding of our candidates than we have now. Karen