On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, jim bell wrote:
At 02:04 PM 12/17/95 -0800, Detweiler wrote: ........... A giver could CLAIM to make any sort of donation at all; but if the system were properly designed he could simply be lying to the officeholder.
moreover, other observers would not be aware of the relationship.
Not IMMEDIATELY, perhaps, but eventually the books could be opened, perhaps as much as years later. (Let's say, 3 months before the end of the term of the politician.
And the amounts donated could withheld, with only the total donated reported every 3 months or so. (And perhaps only to 1 or 2 significant digits of accuracy.) For example, a Senator will be told on January 1, 1996, that up until that point he's received "about" $1.4 million dollars of donations. He would not be able to link these donations with any particular claim. Somebody could claim to have given him "$2000" of donation, which wouldn't even show up to the accuracy of the amount told the politician.
I remain unsure of the crypto-relevance, but (just to play Devil's Advocate) have you guys heard of canceled checks? I get mine in my statement every month. Let's see, what could I do with one for $2,000 payable to Joe Sleazeball Politician, from whom I wanted a favor ..... EBD
Further techniques could be used to disguise the rate of giving.
why do you think this would be an improvement?
Easy. It would remove much of the reason for a politician to treat one citizen differently from another citizen.
to the contrary our current system works hard to require the disclosure of who donated what to a candidate, so the candidate's potential hidden agendas and ulterior motives can be revealed. seems reasonable to me.
_EVENTUAL_ public disclosure of such information is not inconsistent with my idea.
...