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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (13393)	4/11/1998 7:31:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20981

Here's the problem with that. If I won 100 mil. in the lottery, I can guarantee you as a libertarian, I would likely GIVE 99% of it to finance the campaign of perhaps, Harry Browne. I believe wealthy individuals should be free to finance candidates they believe in. We need these kinds of eccentricities to occur- and without the freedom you initially agreed with, this can't happen. Minor candidates are effectively forever impotent(save Ross Perot, who's impotent despite his money). Making matters worse, your proposal would no more stop corruption than fly to the moon. They ALWAYS find a way- I see no improvement- it's not like payoffs/favors wouldn't be just as illegal in my system as yours- and there is nothing particularly more effective in enforcement under your proposal. In a free system, maybe no one cares, but by god if a truly dastardly favor were done, I think the press and the people actually would care indeed. And I'd be free to spend my winnings on someone truly good- as my opinion would have it. Your proposal and current law(bad enough) both tend to ensure that otherwise not necessarily minor contenders remain impotent.