Re: Stopping the buying of candidates

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

At 8:13 PM -0700 10/22/96, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>There would seem to be serious First Amendment problems with this scheme.
>
>If you wanted to give or withhold support, you should able to say that
>you did or didn't donate money. Besides, interest groups would always be
>able to telegraph the news of the donation -- while the public remains
>in the dark. It may be better for the public to have full disclosure.

As I see it, there are also "serious First Amendment problems" with "full
disclosure." Or with the closely-related campaign spending limits.

If we support anonymous leafletting, anonymous speech, and just about
anonymous _anything_, why should we accept that the State can compell who
spent money in support of a candidate?

Our political system is already in thrall to various special interests;
this is the nature of our overly-democratic system. So be it. Let the
highest bidder buy the government he can.

--Tim May

"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."