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."