Interrupting a hearty debate that's well-met is always rather unfortunate, but I'll grit my teeth and do it for the greater good of the list. Campaign finance could easily grow to be an all-encompassing topic for Politech, but in the interests of keeping your mailboxes to a manageable size -- everyone does filter Politech on the Sender: line, right? -- I'm exercising a moderator's privilege and ending it here. Previous message: "More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for groups" http://www.politechbot.com/p-02481.html -Declan ********** Subject: Campaign Finance Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:10:56 -0400 From: "Jim Delong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Declan - I am glad you regard this topic as within your purview, since it is absolutely vital to the future of the republic. Following up on Randy's piece, here is a link to an article arguing that the loopholes are the only good part of the system. Jim DeLong http://www.reason.com/0008/fe.jd.free.html <<Reason magazine -- August-September 2000, Free Money by James V. DeLong.url>> ********** From: "Alexandri, Maya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for gro ups Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 09:55:31 -0400 Declan, Randy's facile analysis that the public interest is served by "more" speech misses the critical issue. In our society, where we imbibe mass media-produced information both deliberately (listening to the news on the radio in the car) and inadvertently (a billboard catches your eye), we are simply overwhelmed with information. "More" information is not helpful without a "filter" or "editor" of some sort to help us process it. People have neither the time, nor the inclination, to perform this editorial function for themselves about every piece of information that's out there. Notwithstanding our constitutional commitment to free speech, there are and will continue to be restraints on the exercise of speech in our public sphere, and the tough issue is determining the parameters of those restraints. Who gets to do the editing? Who decides what the filter should be? It's an unenviable task for a people who pride themselves on not imposing such restrictions, but if we do not do it consciously, the upshot will be a set of poorly crafted restraints that reflect a hodge-podge of interests and suppress more speech than absolutely necessary. Until we move on from this silly "more is better" rhetoric and grapple with the question of editors/filters, we will continue to find ourselves awash in the flotsam of so much speech that we neither absorb nor care about. Maya Alexandri Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 663-6714 (direct) (202) 663-6363 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ********** From: "Jeffrey Mazzella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Camapign Finance Reform Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:36:10 -0400 Organization: CFIF Declan, I noticed a lot of people on the politecbot list are talking about campaign finance reform. I thought they would enjoy a paper (linked below) the Center commissioned entitled, Campaign Finance and the First Amendment. <http://www.cfif.org/5_8_2001/Legislative/leg_fed/cfrdoc.htm>http://www.cfif.org/5_8_2001/Legislative/leg_fed/cfrdoc.htm Regards, Jeff Jeffrey Mazzella Vice President, Legislative Affairs Center for Individual Freedom 901 N. Washington St., Suite 402 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-535-5836 703-535-5838 (Fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.cfif.org ********** From: "Derek Scruggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: More on campaign finance laws creating media loophole for groups Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:02:08 -0600 In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tim Hollebeek wrote: > I mean, come on. Politech leans well left of center. And to me, that's > fine. Whoa! Just goes to show that bias is in the eye of the beholder. With the possible exception of privacy, I believe Politech is generally libertarian in outlook. I say this because it seems to frown on government regulation of any kind - whether its journalists in Singapore, porn or spam. (On spam, for example, Declan has commented at least twice that he favors market-oriented solutions such as the RBL over legislation.) -Derek ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Scruggs http://www.derekscruggs.com Online Marketing Expert Serial Entrepreneur Indoor Soccer Junkie 303-543-1186 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
