FC: Campaign finance "reform": Are loopholes good after all?

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 17:31:49 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: ICANN snatches Australia's .au domain in power grab, by Gordon Cook"

    Interrupting a hearty debate that's well-met is always rather unfortunate, 
    but I'll grit my teeth and do it for the greater good of the list. Campaign 
    finance could easily grow to be an all-encompassing topic for Politech, but 
    in the interests of keeping your mailboxes to a manageable size -- everyone 
    does filter Politech on the Sender: line, right? -- I'm exercising a 
    moderator's privilege and ending it here.
    
    Previous message:
    
    "More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for groups"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-02481.html
    
    -Declan
    
    **********
    
    Subject: Campaign Finance
    Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:10:56 -0400
    From: "Jim Delong" <JDeLongat_private>
    To: <Declanat_private>
    
      Declan -
         I am glad you regard this topic as within your purview, since it is
    absolutely vital to the future of the republic.  Following up on Randy's
    piece, here is a link to an article arguing that the loopholes are the
    only good part of the system.
      Jim DeLong
    
      http://www.reason.com/0008/fe.jd.free.html
    
      <<Reason magazine -- August-September 2000, Free Money by James V.
    DeLong.url>>
    
    **********
    
    From: "Alexandri, Maya" <MAlexandriat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for gro
             ups
    Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 09:55:31 -0400
    
    Declan, Randy's facile analysis that the public interest is served by "more"
    speech misses the critical issue.  In our society, where we imbibe mass
    media-produced information both deliberately (listening to the news on the
    radio in the car) and inadvertently (a billboard catches your eye), we are
    simply overwhelmed with information.  "More" information is not helpful
    without a "filter" or "editor" of some sort to help us process it.  People
    have neither the time, nor the inclination, to perform this editorial
    function for themselves about every piece of information that's out there.
    
    Notwithstanding our constitutional commitment to free speech, there are and
    will continue to be restraints on the exercise of speech in our public
    sphere, and the tough issue is determining the parameters of those
    restraints.  Who gets to do the editing?  Who decides what the filter should
    be?  It's an unenviable task for a people who pride themselves on not
    imposing such restrictions, but if we do not do it consciously, the upshot
    will be a set of poorly crafted restraints that reflect a hodge-podge of
    interests and suppress more speech than absolutely necessary.
    
    Until we move on from this silly "more is better" rhetoric and grapple with
    the question of editors/filters, we will continue to find ourselves awash in
    the flotsam of so much speech that we neither absorb nor care about.
    
    Maya Alexandri
    Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
    2445 M Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20037
    (202) 663-6714 (direct)
    (202) 663-6363 (fax)
    malexandriat_private <mailto:malexandriat_private>
    
    **********
    
    From: "Jeffrey Mazzella" <jmazzellaat_private>
    To: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private>
    Subject: Camapign Finance Reform
    Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:36:10 -0400
    Organization: CFIF
    
    Declan,
    
    I noticed a lot of people on the politecbot list are talking about campaign 
    finance reform.  I thought they would enjoy a paper (linked below) the 
    Center commissioned entitled, Campaign Finance and the First Amendment.
    
    <http://www.cfif.org/5_8_2001/Legislative/leg_fed/cfrdoc.htm>http://www.cfif.org/5_8_2001/Legislative/leg_fed/cfrdoc.htm
    
    Regards,
    Jeff
    
    Jeffrey Mazzella
    Vice President, Legislative Affairs
    Center for Individual Freedom
    901 N. Washington St., Suite 402
    Alexandria, VA 22314
    703-535-5836
    703-535-5838 (Fax)
    jmazzellaat_private
    www.cfif.org
    
    **********
    
    From: "Derek Scruggs" <derekat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for  groups
    Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:02:08 -0600
    In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010907113927.02103370at_private>
    
    Tim Hollebeek wrote:
    
     > I mean, come on.  Politech leans well left of center.  And to me, that's
     > fine.
    
    Whoa! Just goes to show that bias is in the eye of the beholder. With the
    possible exception of privacy, I believe Politech is generally libertarian
    in outlook. I say this because it seems to frown on government regulation of
    any kind - whether its journalists in Singapore, porn or spam. (On spam, for
    example, Declan has commented at least twice that he favors market-oriented
    solutions such as the RBL over legislation.)
    
    -Derek
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Derek Scruggs
    http://www.derekscruggs.com
    Online Marketing Expert
    Serial Entrepreneur
    Indoor Soccer Junkie
    303-543-1186
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    **********
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 10 2001 - 18:30:46 PDT