Re: Digital Cash application

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 10:53 PM 6/19/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
>Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 19-Jun-96 Re: Digital Cash
>application by jim bell@pacifier.com 
>> It seems to me that since paying people funds that were stolen from them 
>> would produce good publicity, which by definition could be argued to be 
>> spending it on the campaign.  Sure, it's a non-traditional tactic, but that 
>> doesn't mean it's in violation of the campaign law.  They could also email 
>> along a set of libertarian literature, and the recipient would certify that 
>> he would promote the libertarian cause and work for the election of the 
>> candidate, etc, etc.
>
>Jim: I've worked on a presidential campaign before and can tell you that
>if the FEC is likely to consider something a violation, the campaign is
>not going to skirt the line.
>
>That said, perhaps the law is outdated and needs to be changed.


The following two paragraphs were sent to me by a person familiar with 
Oregon Libertarian politics over the last 15 years:


"Good idea.  Something like this was done in the early '80's in Oregon.
There was a $1 checkoff to the political party of one's choice on the
Oregon income tax form, and the LPO was the recipient of a grand or so of
money stolen from taxpayers.  Gary Chipman came up with the idea of
sending $1 bills to LPO members and registered Oregon libertarians with a
fundraising letter touting us as the only party that would really give
them their money back."

"Interestingly, the mailing raised more in donations than it cost in stolen
money and postage, and got us good press too.  The legislature promptly
abolished the checkoff during their next session."

[end of quote]

There may be a CLUE here:  Laws and regulations tend to be written based on 
what the writer can imagine, and are updated based on what has happened.  We 
can probably agree that "standard" (non-libertarian) politics would not have 
anticipated such an idea, and moreover you can also suppose that 20+ years 
of D's and R's politics would not have resulted in an example of such a 
tactic being used.  Thus, there is no obvious reason to believe that this 
kind of tactic would have already been prohibited.

We can agree that D's and R's won't like it, as is obvious from what the 
Oregon legislature did, but rather than merely presume that it is illegal, 
why not take the position that unless it is clearly outlawed, then it must 
be considered a legal tactic?  It would be a valid goal to eliminate the 
system, as it apparently did in Oregon.  Don't give up before the race.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com