From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 12:58:49 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Political Cleanup program
In-Reply-To: <m0tRWN2-0008yUC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951218102705.4985D-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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.
> 
...