Well, that's why you would need a constitutional amendment, I guess. The
liberal version is that you would restrict issue advertising within a
certain period before elections. The radical version is that you would put
all paid issue advocacy within the system. Personally, I would be very
happy with the second option. There would be no restriction on unpaid
advocacy, and there would be an equalization of resources otherwise. How
would you propose rescuing democracy from the huge imbalance of wealth in a
capitalist society? (Yeah, I know, but you may need a lot more democracy
than we have now in order to make the next step.)
Peter
Max Sawicky wrote:
> How do you bar the use of money by 'issue groups'
> without contradicting the 1st amendment?
>
> mbs
>
> > Thanks for the report, Max. Sounds like you're on board...
> >
> > I think there is a big future for campaign finance reform, and in
> > retrospect I think the Greens didn't take full advantage of the issue.
> > Going back in time, here is what I would have advised:
