Political Cleanup program [NOISE]

[hallam at w3.org]

>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.

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.

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.

>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.



		Phill