Re: Political Cleanup program
At 02:04 PM 12/17/95 -0800, Detweiler wrote:
JB:
Politics is traditionally corrupt, it appears, because donors to politicians and political campaigns expect a quid pro quo for their donations. Various unsatisfactory solutions include campaign spending limits, etc.
I have an unusual view that I've never seen elsewhere: the problem with our government is not that money or PACs are involved, but that the system does not handle or resolve the conflicts between them very well. in other words, in contrary to the current view that all PACs are evil, I think the problem is not that we have PACs, but that our current system does not balance their demands in some sensible manner. the system is susceptible to corruption. it is conceivable however that there would be a system that involves money and politics but still avoids corruption.
Here's a question I have never heard anyone else ask (or answer!). "What is the purpose of a PAC? To be more specific, a PAC simply seems to be a funnel through which individual donations flow; why do we need a PAC? Is it to keep records of "who's naughty and nice"? Any contribution that can be made by a PAC could just as easily be made by one individual.
It occurs to me that it would be a major advance if a system could be set up that would "blind" campaign donations as to their source: The donor could be satisfied that his donation gets to the candidate or cause, but the candidate couldn't know who actually paid the money (and the donor would be unable to prove that he made a donation, for example). Admittedly there are a lot of details that need to be worked out, but if this could be accomplished it would change politics as we know it.
what you describe would allow anonymous bribes.
Which, I suggest, is better than a non-anonymous bribe.
the giver could always
"always"? Are you sure about that?
identify his cash donation "out of band" to the receiver.
It is exactly this that the system I'd propose would prevent. I realize that you may not be able to imagine such a system, but that doesn't mean that such a system could be designed. (Before 1975, most of us would not have been able to imagine public-key encryption, for example.) 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. 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.
you are probably barking up the wrong tree here on cypherpunks, however, because most of the key "insiders" here are convinced that democracy is a proven failure, and that in fact government is invariably corrupt and oppressive, no matter what the implementation. the "solutions" advocated here are chiefly withdrawal and subterfuge.
I don't disagree with that assessment. However, that does not mean that I don't want to make life as difficult for the politicians as possible until they are swinging from a rope.
needless to say I disagree with this. I wonder if some day someone will invent a "killer app" that doubles as a political governing system. it seems to me politics is one of the last most intractable areas of human interaction when many others have been harmonized and systematized by the information revolution. I suspect it will eventually succumb to technological ingenuity as well. the end result would be a government that is not perfect, but is at least as good as the population that drives it, and no worse. (in contrast today we seem to have a government that is no better than the least common denominator).
JB, I have to wonder however how your ideas about campaign reform tie into your prior advocation
"Prior"? It's not "prior." I haven't changed my previous position one bit.
of political assinations as a legitimate form of citizen power. have you given up on the idea of murdering politicians as a means of political reform?
Not "political reform." Political ELIMINATION. I want to eliminate the entire concept of a heirarchial government.
or are you now just coupling that idea with campaign reform to put some new bells and whistles on your overall ideological package?
I repeat my previous statement. I'm happy to see them squirm before they are led to the gallows. Making life as difficult as possible for them is my goal. Using technology to disable their normal methods of corruption would be an excellent start.
The main problem with anonymous political donations is that it is easy enough to create linkage if the recipient and the donor conspire together. There are many other things that campaign laws are intended to achieve beyond avoiding bribery. For example foreign nationals cannot make donations to US parties. It would be a good thing if there were similar laws in the UK since at the last election a foreign national with links to organised crime alledghedly made a multi million donation to the Conservative party. Of course in the absence of full disclosure of details of party records nobody can be sure. We are as voters entitled to consider the worst however. Similarly it would be bad if a politician could obtain huge sums of money simply by espousing causes backed by lartge sums of cash. A candidate that proposed making large federal donnations to the arms industry (codeword "Strong defence") might expect substantially more donations than one who proposed a reversal of this policy. Similarly candidates supporting private prisons might expect funds from the likely beneficiaries and so on. The starting point for campaign reform has to be to cap the amount that can be spent on a campaign. Most countries have such laws to prevent the political process from being owned by the rich. Unfortunately this has happened in the US with the effect that both parties are much further to the right than in any other Western democracy. Phill
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.
...
participants (3)
-
Brian Davis -
hallam＠w3.org -
jim bell