From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 22:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Stopping the buying of candidates
Message-ID: <199610230514.WAA22084@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:13 PM 10/22/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>There would seem to be serious First Amendment problems with this scheme.

As there is with political donation restrictions generally.  I suppose the 
fig leaf they wrap around this is to buy the cooperation of the candidates 
by matching funds for those candidates who agree to restrictions.  Do the 
laws really prohibit the giving of more than a certain amount of money, or 
just the act of receiving it?  

>If you wanted to give or withhold support, you should able to say that 
>you did or didn't donate money.  Besides, interest groups would always be 
>able to telegraph the news of the donation -- while the public remains 
>in the dark. It may be better for the public to have full disclosure.
>-Declan

Sure, you can't keep people from talking.  However, one way to sabotage the 
usefulness of telling is to allow everybody else as well to make the same 
claim, with essentially no way for the candidates to tell who is REALLY 
giving the money.  Make the lie just as credible as the truth, and the value 
of knowing the truth is destroyed.  If nobody can trust anyone else's word, 
then no candidate could know who REALLY ought to be rewarded for a campaign 
contribution, breaking the circle of quid-pro-quo.  

The candidate still gets the money, of course, and the contributor is still 
free to both donate and speak...separately.  The thing that's been cut off 
is the association between the money and the speech...which is exactly what 
the problem is, isn't it?

I haven't thought this through well enough to know just how possible such a 
system might be, but this is exactly the kind of goal that cryptography and 
data-blinding functions can accomplish.  Frankly, I'd prefer a more 
effective (and more lethal) solution, but for all those who object to AP, 
here's my alternative plan.


>On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 09:24 AM 10/17/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>> >
>> >There are several swirling threads about the development of crypto systems
>> >(e.g., "binding cryptography," "key recovery," "one-way traceable e-cash")
>> >that are designed to allow law enforcement some ability to track illegal
>> >transactions, catch some criminals, etc.
>> 
>> One of the other items on my wish-list (short of a more, uh, "permanent" 
>> solution to politics) is a system to actually enforce the anonymity of 
>> political donations.  What I mean is this:  As bad as a large political 
>> contribution is, what's worse is that the candidate who receives it knows 
>> who it is from, and how large it is, etc.  Given the recent flap over the 
>> Indonesian donations to the DNC, it seems to me that it would actually clean 
>> up politics if there were a mechanism to collect donations, blind them and 
>> send them to the proper candidate, but hide the actual source of that money. 
>>  Hide it from the candidates, not necessarily the anyone else. 
>
>// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //
>
>
>
>
Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com