From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 06:12:13 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Senator, your public key please?
Message-ID: <199605181633.JAA09614@newmail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:01 PM 5/16/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>
>Secondly, the Ethics Committee was very interested in the issue.  As of
>now they have ruled that "exchanging" PGP signatures is an "exchange in
>kind" and an ethics violation.  Ms. Howell expressed exasperation over
>this lunacy, but put it much this way:  "No, you guys don't understand
>what the issues are here, but I don't have 3 hours to explain it all to
>you either."  Apparently the ethics committee is concerned that a
>signature from Leahy's key will constitute some sort of endorsement and the
>"you sign mine and I'll sign yours" looks like influence peddling.
>
>Part of the problem was that several politically oriented groups
>approached Leahy's office and descended like vultures on a carcass,
>all of them wanting to certify his key.  
>
>No signing from Senator's keys for the time being.  She said the ethics
>committee went so far as to prohibit them from soliciting signatures from
>others as well.  Her conservative (and reasonable) interpretation was that
>she couldn't hand over a fingerprint of the key for signing purposes.
>
>As things stand now Ms. Howell intends to try and educate some of the key
>Ethics members over the August break and have a decent signing policy
>after the break itself.
>
>Welcome to the hill.

Gee, isn't it too bad that nobody has thought of a solution for all these 
politician-problems?    B^)


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com