Re: Re: Re: new campaign reform idea

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 26 May 2001 08:46:06 -0700, Jim Devine wrote:
>actually, the job of the central authority isn't to _identify_ corrupt
>behavior. Rather, its job is to prevent such behavior: [...]

These two functions are not different in practice. If corrupt behavior
is to be stopped it must be both identified and prevented. This plan
would leave journalists with no way to ascertain corruption, aside from
raiding the clearinghouse entity's offices in the manner of G. Gordon
Liddy.

>>That one entity would have the ability to cheat.
>
>why would Vanguard (or whoever) cheat?

Why wouldn't they? What if officers of this entity secretly preferred
one candidate over the others?

>>This is a typical elite proposal.
>> [...] an alternative to the Ayres plan, we could ban soft money

>but that kind of plan always has loopholes, too.

The reform proposed most often, banning soft money, would not sacrifice
transparency. That is, you would still know who gave how much. That
allows journalists to track down corruption, possible and real. A case
in point are the donations given by Denise Rich to the various Clinton
projects.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx