From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 14:15:01 +0800
To: declan@well.com (Declan McCullagh)
Subject: Re: Digital Cash application
Message-ID: <199606192305.QAA16832@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:20 PM 6/19/96 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Whether it's a good idea or not -

Don't bury your head in the sand too early.

>- and I'm told that it could violate FEC
>rules -

_ANYTHING_ could "violate FEC rules."  The issue is, "could this be done in 
a way that would NOT violate any such rules.  Or, more generally, could this 
be done in a way that would challenge or even obliterate FEC rules.  If you 
ask a lawyer for the course of action to take that will, guaranteed, not 
raise any eyebrows, he'll give you one speech.  If, on the other, you ask 
him if a tactic violates black-letter law, for certain, he'll give you another.

>- it's not going to happen.
>A campaign spokesperson told me that "Harry refuses" to take the cash, period.

(How certain are you that they understand the ramifications of this?)

This year, maybe not.  However that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a 
debate on the subject.  Technology may allow a rip-roaring debate among the 
public, not just the Libertarian Party, and e-cash may implement this 
stolen-property return in a way designed to cause the most consternation and 
embarrassment among those in power.

Remember, if it has been decided, a year ago, that doing this was "okay", 
chances are good that Harry Browne WOULD be willing to do so now.  Trying to 
ignore the issue won't make it go away.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com