Let's try this again, shall we? My mailer didn't act the way I wanted it to... ___________________________________
I happen to believe in freedom of speech, especially political speech, and if you're not allowed to spend money broadcasting your speech or printing your messages, you don't have much freedom of press or speech.
It is very strange the way that "Libertarians" are so able to turn all rights into property rights. Thus freedom of speech become freedom to have influence on the politicial process in direct proportion to wealth. _____________________________________ Not so strange really. All rights, correctly understood, *are* property rights. What most don't understand is that rights are protections from the initiation of force by others. What this means is that you (anyone) don't have the right to the property of others. You have the right to offer mutually satisfactory exchanges, or even solicit outright gifts, but what is yours is yours, and it shouldn't be subject to extortion or theft by others. This includes your time, cash, and any other tangible assets you may own. _______________________________________________ I began work on the web in '92 because I saw its potential as a political tool which did not have the bias of wealth. It has the potential to create a new kind of political dialogue. When the Web becomes as ubiquitous as the telephone we will still see inequalities of power, the homeless and the poor will still be underrepresented. But that situation must be judged against our own where the political process can be bought and traded as if it were any other form of comodity. ________________________________________ The problem with the political process now is that the government and its beneficiaries (which includes both the large corporation and the welfare class) have over time arrogated to themselves the power to steal (via taxes and regulation) our lives and our livelihood from us. The poor and the rich will always be with us, but they shouldn't be special clients of the state at the expense of everyone else. _____________________________________ It is not simply an issue of money, it is an issue of national security. If a foreigner were to control the majority of the media there would be a significant threat to the national interest. This threat has been realised in the UK with the comming to power of Rupert Murdoch. Fortunately his influence on the US political scene has thus far been minor. In his own country he has brought down the government more than once. _____________________________________________ The only reason foreign money might be a threat to us is again that the government arrogated to itself the power to regulate our lives. The reason and interest for lobbying the government, whether through the press or through other, more direct, efforts is that the government *can do something* about whatever happens to be at issue. Take away the ability of the government to act, and there won't be any money spent lobbying it. I submit we'd all be better off. ________________________________________________
And as far as "prevent the political process from being owned by the rich" goes, there have been brief exceptions over the last 5000 years in which the less-rich have overthrown the rich, but campaign finance laws have almost never kept the rich or the politicians from helping each other out.
In UK politicis the influence of an individual's money is limited to influencing one party. Even that is done behind closed doors. The other major parties both limit the size of individual contributions to a constituency party to a relatively nominal sum. $5000 is a huge sum in UK politics.
I also don't believe freedom of speech should be limited by national boundaries.
Nor do I. But I only vote in one country. If we take the question outside the US it would not on the whole be a good thing if the Prime Minister of Tobago (say) were provided with a campaign contribution of $1M by a foreign company with an interest in strip mining the entire island. similarly it would be a bad thing if Columbian drug lords were to make massive contributions to politicians committed to continuing the prohibition on drugs. _______________________________________ See my above comments. Only if the PM of Tobago could steal the land from its owners could he permit the island to be strip-mined. And only if the government has the power to prohibit drug possession would the Cali cartel be interested in making campaign contributions. No power to do something, no money offered to do it. ____________________ Phill Kurt [Speaking only for myself, of course]