From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:07:44 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Political Cleanup program
Message-ID: <m0tRWN2-0008yUC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.