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. Not to sound like a dupe or anything, but every time I get discouraged at the rampant mealyism of our political system I go read the first couple of paragraphs of a text from GOVT 101. There, I get reminded that the way most political debate is handled elsewhere is with bullets. Personally, I welcome a complete equity between all lobbyists seeking to obtain a politico's ear. Take the money out of the equation, and let the merits of their causes, if any, stand on their own. Happy holidays, Richard