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: Lane3 who wrote (43960)	2/9/2002 10:25:50 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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. I recognize that as a potential problem but I'm against regulation of the speech of private individuals or organizations in just about any way (except for fraud, "yelling fire in a crowded theater, and threats). I'd rather deal with the mess we have now. Also I'm not so sure that politicians wouldn't just find ways around these extended barriers as well. As for spending limits incumbents can make news using their position, esp. the president and get some attention just for having the position. Members of Congress have the franking privilege. Anybody new is going to have to spend a lot just to get people to know their name. I'm not sure that just a few million per presidential candidate,and perhaps a few hundred thousand for Senate and maybe less for Reps. is enough. I'm concerned that a spending limit bill becomes an incumbent protection act. We already have a very high rate of incumbent reelection but if you limit spending it might get even higher. In some cases no one would have any chance of unseating an incumbent without spending truckloads of cash... Tim