From: "Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Stopping the buying of candidates
Message-ID: <199610252156.QAA19055@earth.execpc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I apologize to the list for this last post by Murder, Inc.  My last 
piece of mail was sent privately to Mr. Bell.  He apparently thinks 
it proper to quote private mail in public.  Whatever.

> >I wanted to take this crypto-irrelevant discussion off the list.
> 
> If you think the applications for the use of cryptographic blinding 
> techniques is "crypto-irrelevant" then you're even more clueless than I'd 
> previously surmised.  See Chaum's article of August 1992 if you doubt this.

What exactly are your credentials.  Your reputation, of course, 
precedes you.  Given that I should have stopped this idiocy a long 
time ago.

> The money will eventually be spendable.  But information as to the number 
> and timing and size of the donations will be disguised using blinding 
> techniques.  Re-read my comments.

Explain, please, how you would budget in this situation.  Oh, I 
forgot, when the world realizes that Jim is right, everyone will 
learn to live their lives like Jim.

> Nobody said politics had to be easy.  They'll adjust to the new reality; 
> they always do.

see above.

> >My point is, Jim, that your idea is unworkable in reality. 
> 
> Since you obviously don't understand it, and you also don't understand 
> cryptographic blinding, why should anybody pay attention to your opinion?

Hmmm.  How long have you been on the list?  What is it I don't 
understand, specifically.  And in private e-mail.

> > In theory it would be nice to have complete anonymity.  In reality it won't 
> >work.
> 
> Always overstating your case, I see.  For the application I described, it 
> isn't necessary to have "complete anonymity."  What's needed is a healthy 
> dose of fog and uncertainty, making sure that the candidates can't trust any 
> claim that a donor has made a donation of any particular size.

Explain to me how many campaigns you have run.  Explain to me at 
least a paper you have written (I dont particularly care if you do or 
dont have a degree, my opinions are based upon your ability to assert 
and defend a thesis).   How many people support your ideas?  The 
revolt must be stealth.  Yeah, that's it.

> Since today's campaign contribution limits seem to be inherently a violation 
> of freedom of speech, why not embrace my solution, which doesn't do this?

You are right, they do.   In your world, there must be only two 
solutions.  Jim's way or the current way.  Or better yet, just spout 
off.

> "Constitutionalist"?  Hell no!  I subscribe to the idea inherent in the 
> joke, "The Constitution may be bad government, but it's better than what we 
> have now."  I think there's no doubt that a government based scrupulously on 
> the US Constitution would be a vast improvement.  However, we've never had 
> such a thing.

What is your alternative, Jim.  Oh yeah, kill all the politicians.  
Look to the archives folks.  **PLONK**

> Such "proof" will be easily faked, BTW, which is part of the reason this 
> system will work so well.  I could go to some candidate and claim that I'd 
> made a $10,000 contribution to his campaign.  

Jim, how many politicians do you have regular contact with.  There 
were CongressCritters at my wedding, but you know what?  If I told 
them I just made $10,000 donation to their campaign they would not 
believe me.  You know what else?  You couldn't get close.  Every 
office on the hill knows of the resident nuts.  Its the essence of a 
killfile, nuts are handed off to the intern.  The players are known.  
I don't particularly care if you believe me.  Again what is your 
experience?

> Let's say I'd show him a 
> (forged) cancelled check.  What could he do about it?  Would he risk pissing 
> off a valuable contributor?

If he has already raised 100's of thousands of dollars before, he 
would have no need to deal with you at all.  Especially since, I 
assume from your prior statements that you would get rid of 
contribution limits.

> Sure about that?  Let me provide some contrary evidence.  Every once in a 
> while, you'll see on the TV networks a report about corporate (and labor, 
> BTW) campaign giving, and they will occasionally point out that a given 
> corporation (or PAC, etc.) gives money BOTH to the Republicans and the 
> Democrats.  They have no reason to do this, except that they think they will 
> get some benefit in the future from the "access" that contribution produces. 

Corporate donations?  Look it up.  Yep, they do.  And after you blind 
the donations, the access will continue to be bought.  Politicians 
can use laws of probability to figure out who has, will and will in 
the future donate.  They can also eliminate a whole bunch of folks.

> not the opponents.  If they thought it necessary, they would lie about 
> making a contribution to the other candidate.

How many lobbyists do you know Jim?  

> >Let me ask you this.  Do you enjoy the net of today (AOL, Spam, 
> >XXX-rated transfers bogging down traffic)
> 
> Why should I mind the particular characteristics ("XXX-rated transfers") of 
> the traffic jams?  What are you, some kind of Born-again christian or 
> something?   And while I don't like the spam, either, I am under no illusion 

Did you protest the COS crap?  Well shit Jim, I dont care about the 
content.  Nevermind.

> It sounds like you're making a contradition.  Previously, you suggested that 
> a privatized system wouldn't work, but at the end of the last paragraph you 
> seem to be saying that the blame falls on "the legislature"'s doing 
> something wrong.

Hmm.  Blame and workability.  What is the connection.  Maybe we can 
all take up a collection so that Jim can go to logic class.

> And if you object to being rooked in a company's bankruptcy, complain to the 
> government who makes itself a preferred creditor  in almost all circumstances.

I thought we couldnt complain to the Governement?  Jeez. Jim, your 
confusing me.  God I must be dumb.  Or maybe you are really writing 
in a style that can easily be decrypted to mean something else.  
Yeah, Jim, that's it.

> If it's "perfectly legal" yet "inherently unfair," it sounds like much of 
> the blame lies with the legislature, since it is the legislature that is 
> responsible for the laws.  Huh?

Blame, workability, its like trying to teach a student with no brain.

> >Try looking at election results. 
> 
> You still haven't proven your case.

How many times do I have to explain probability to you?  Jesus, look 
it up.  

> You are coming to conclusions without support.  As I said before, you've 
> convinced yourself that you KNOW that a particular election went a 
> particular way precisely because of "public employees."  Sigh!  

See above.  Oh yeah, uh, Jim, you can use that nifty scroll button,

> >Actually, in my small city, with under 2000 active voters, it is 
> >fairly easy to discern the number one identifiable group.  I DONT 
> >deal in theory.  I deal in reality, you should try it.  While your 
> >theories are enticing they are TOTALLY without the ability to be 
> >realized.
> 
> You STILL aren't supporting your claims!

Probability.  Anyone want to send him a Statistics Textbook?

> >Politics deals with probability not certainty.  If you had ANY real 
> >world experience you would know that.  Budgets are all dependant upon 
> >reasonable probabilities.  Its really not that hard to grasp.
> 
> How much longer do you intend to waste my time?  

Oh, Im sorry.  You must be planning on taking over the world.  Oh 
yeah, I heard all of your friends jumping to your support.  All of 
the political ties you made with all of your experience are jumping 
to your aid.  

I hear only one solitary sound.  ***PLONK***

> 
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 
> 
++++==============----------------------------
Matthew J. Miszewski |The information revolution has changed wealth: 
		     |intellectual capital is now far more important 
mjmiski@execpc.com   |than money.		-Walter Wriston
                         ----------------------------==============++++