- Original Message -
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [cdr] Re: Digital cash and campaign finance reform
There are too many loopholes to close.
I think that's the smartest thing any one of us has said on this topic.
Joe
At 09:28 AM 9/9/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 08:39 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:51 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[anonymous funding of
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 11:47 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 09:28 AM 9/9/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Why are you not addressing the more direct attack, the one I
described yesterday?
The contributions you receive for $87.93 came from our members.
Unless the amounts are consolidated by a
Tim May wrote:
In any case, campaign finance reform is essentially uninteresting and
statist.
Yes Tim, but as we happen to live in places where states make laws
and employ men with guns to hurt us if we disobey those laws then
we do have an interest (in the other sense) in who gets to run the
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 09:58 AM, ken wrote:
Tim May wrote:
In any case, campaign finance reform is essentially uninteresting and
statist.
Yes Tim, but as we happen to live in places where states make laws and
employ men with guns to hurt us if we disobey those laws then we do
have
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 08:39 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:51 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[anonymous funding of politicians]
Comments?
Simple attack: Bob talks to
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 08:39 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:51 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[anonymous funding of politicians]
Comments?
Simple attack: Bob talks to
At 09:28 AM 9/9/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 08:39 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:51 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[anonymous funding of
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 11:47 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 09:28 AM 9/9/2003 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Why are you not addressing the more direct attack, the one I
described yesterday?
The contributions you receive for $87.93 came from our members.
Unless the amounts are consolidated by a
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 09:58 AM, ken wrote:
Tim May wrote:
In any case, campaign finance reform is essentially uninteresting and
statist.
Yes Tim, but as we happen to live in places where states make laws and
employ men with guns to hurt us if we disobey those laws then we do
have
Tim May wrote:
In any case, campaign finance reform is essentially uninteresting and
statist.
Yes Tim, but as we happen to live in places where states make laws
and employ men with guns to hurt us if we disobey those laws then
we do have an interest (in the other sense) in who gets to run the
At 06:31 PM 9/9/2003 +0200, Amir Herzberg wrote:
Steve suggested (see below) that anonymous cash may be useful to hide the
identities of contributors from the party/candidate they contribute to.
I'm afraid this won't work: e-cash protocols are not trying to prevent a
`covert channel` between
Steve Schear wrote:
By combining a mandated digital cash system for contributions, a cap on the
size of each individual contribution (perhaps as small as $100), randomized
delays (perhaps up to a few weeks) in the posting of each transaction to
the account of the counter party, it could
Steve - The whole thing is a crock, and the problems aren't technical.
None of the proposed users of the system have any desire to use it,
except perhaps as a front for other activities,
and the people who'd want them to make them use it are just meddlers.
It's funny how any time you bring up the
On Monday 08 September 2003 14:34, Ian Grigg wrote:
Steve Schear wrote:
anonymous contributions to candidates
How would you audit such a system? I'm not that up
on political cash, but I would have expected that there
would be a need to figure out where money was coming
from, by some
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 10:11 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
Everyone knows that money is the life blood of politics. The topic of
campaign finance reform in the U.S. has been on and off the front
burner of the major media, for decades. Although the ability of
citizens and corporations to
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 10:11 AM, Steve Schear wrote:
Everyone knows that money is the life blood of politics. The topic of
campaign finance reform in the U.S. has been on and off the front
burner of the major media, for decades. Although the ability of
citizens and corporations to
On Monday 08 September 2003 14:34, Ian Grigg wrote:
Steve Schear wrote:
anonymous contributions to candidates
How would you audit such a system? I'm not that up
on political cash, but I would have expected that there
would be a need to figure out where money was coming
from, by some
Steve Schear wrote:
By combining a mandated digital cash system for contributions, a cap on the
size of each individual contribution (perhaps as small as $100), randomized
delays (perhaps up to a few weeks) in the posting of each transaction to
the account of the counter party, it could
Steve - The whole thing is a crock, and the problems aren't technical.
None of the proposed users of the system have any desire to use it,
except perhaps as a front for other activities,
and the people who'd want them to make them use it are just meddlers.
It's funny how any time you bring up the
At 04:51 PM 9/8/2003 -0700, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[anonymous funding of politicians]
Comments?
Simple attack: Bob talks to soon to be bought politician. Tomorrow you'll
recieve a donation of
21 matches
Mail list logo
