Politech mailing list archives

FC: Campaign finance "reform": Are loopholes good after all?


From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:31:49 -0400

Interrupting a hearty debate that's well-met is always rather unfortunate, but I'll grit my teeth and do it for the greater good of the list. Campaign finance could easily grow to be an all-encompassing topic for Politech, but in the interests of keeping your mailboxes to a manageable size -- everyone does filter Politech on the Sender: line, right? -- I'm exercising a moderator's privilege and ending it here.

Previous message:

"More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for groups"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02481.html

-Declan

**********

Subject: Campaign Finance
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:10:56 -0400
From: "Jim Delong" <JDeLong () cei org>
To: <Declan () well com>

 Declan -
    I am glad you regard this topic as within your purview, since it is
absolutely vital to the future of the republic.  Following up on Randy's
piece, here is a link to an article arguing that the loopholes are the
only good part of the system.
 Jim DeLong

 http://www.reason.com/0008/fe.jd.free.html

 <<Reason magazine -- August-September 2000, Free Money by James V.
DeLong.url>>

**********

From: "Alexandri, Maya" <MAlexandri () wilmer com>
To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for gro
        ups
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 09:55:31 -0400

Declan, Randy's facile analysis that the public interest is served by "more"
speech misses the critical issue.  In our society, where we imbibe mass
media-produced information both deliberately (listening to the news on the
radio in the car) and inadvertently (a billboard catches your eye), we are
simply overwhelmed with information.  "More" information is not helpful
without a "filter" or "editor" of some sort to help us process it.  People
have neither the time, nor the inclination, to perform this editorial
function for themselves about every piece of information that's out there.

Notwithstanding our constitutional commitment to free speech, there are and
will continue to be restraints on the exercise of speech in our public
sphere, and the tough issue is determining the parameters of those
restraints.  Who gets to do the editing?  Who decides what the filter should
be?  It's an unenviable task for a people who pride themselves on not
imposing such restrictions, but if we do not do it consciously, the upshot
will be a set of poorly crafted restraints that reflect a hodge-podge of
interests and suppress more speech than absolutely necessary.

Until we move on from this silly "more is better" rhetoric and grapple with
the question of editors/filters, we will continue to find ourselves awash in
the flotsam of so much speech that we neither absorb nor care about.

Maya Alexandri
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
2445 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 663-6714 (direct)
(202) 663-6363 (fax)
malexandri () wilmer com <mailto:malexandri () wilmer com>

**********

From: "Jeffrey Mazzella" <jmazzella () cfif org>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
Subject: Camapign Finance Reform
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:36:10 -0400
Organization: CFIF

Declan,

I noticed a lot of people on the politecbot list are talking about campaign finance reform. I thought they would enjoy a paper (linked below) the Center commissioned entitled, Campaign Finance and the First Amendment.

<http://www.cfif.org/5_8_2001/Legislative/leg_fed/cfrdoc.htm>http://www.cfif.org/5_8_2001/Legislative/leg_fed/cfrdoc.htm

Regards,
Jeff

Jeffrey Mazzella
Vice President, Legislative Affairs
Center for Individual Freedom
901 N. Washington St., Suite 402
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
703-535-5838 (Fax)
jmazzella () cfif org
www.cfif.org

**********

From: "Derek Scruggs" <derek () scruggs net>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for  groups
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:02:08 -0600
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010907113927.02103370 () mail well com>

Tim Hollebeek wrote:

> I mean, come on.  Politech leans well left of center.  And to me, that's
> fine.

Whoa! Just goes to show that bias is in the eye of the beholder. With the
possible exception of privacy, I believe Politech is generally libertarian
in outlook. I say this because it seems to frown on government regulation of
any kind - whether its journalists in Singapore, porn or spam. (On spam, for
example, Declan has commented at least twice that he favors market-oriented
solutions such as the RBL over legislation.)

-Derek

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Scruggs
http://www.derekscruggs.com
Online Marketing Expert
Serial Entrepreneur
Indoor Soccer Junkie
303-543-1186
----------------------------------------------------------------------

**********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: