Decius wrote:
] I think we're curtailed the freedom of speech. If I
] support a candidate then I ought to be able to say it, and I
] ought to be able to say it with a great big billboard if I so
] desire.

[ I don't know, seems like that just brings the equation back to money. I can't afford a great big billboard. If you can, and do as you indicate, then we no longer have parity of voice... we no longer have equality in the fundamental strength of our ideas. I have to find 100 or 1000 friends to chip in and help me oppose your voice, for no other reason than you have more cash. Perhaps that's ok, but it seems wrong to me. ..]

] I also think we've seriously violated
] people's personal privacy. I can find out what campaigns my
] employees and business partners have donated money to!!

[ .. i kind of agree, though, laws already exist to protect you from discrimination on those grounds, so i don't know that the risk for abuse has risen. Still, there's no good reason to publish that information, and i tend to be of the opinion that most information should stay private by default, and making anything public should require some justification. ..]

] Each candidate gets a least a page to state his or her case.
] Every office and referenda item is covered. You spend an hour
] looking it over and you walk into the ballot office knowing
] something about who you are voting for.

[ .. I love this idea. I don't know where the best place would be to get the money for printing, etc. such a thing, given how strapped most states are. Perhaps a levy from the parties, based on how many candidates are in it. That way, the people's money supports their information, but it's not prepared by an interest. ..]

] An uninformed Democracy is not a democracy at all.

[ .. quite possibly the biggest problem we face in the U.S. -k]

k wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] [ I don't know, seems like that just brings the equation back
] to money. I can't afford a great big billboard. If you can,
] and do as you indicate, then we no longer have parity of
] voice...

Thats just it. I don't care. I have an inalienable right to freedom of speech that ought to take precident here. What part of the first amendment requires parity of voice? You want equal opportunity, but you do not want equality of result, particularly when you are talking about political speech. Censorship is not the right way to address the influence of money in politics. Censorship is not the right way to address anything.

] [ .. i kind of agree, though, laws already exist to protect
] you from discrimination on those grounds, so i don't know that
] the risk for abuse has risen.

The risk for abuse has absolutely risen. The fact that laws exist hardly eliminates the possibility of abuse. I can find out who my neighbors support and I can put pressure on them. I can address them in the street. I can refuse opportunities to them. I can call them names. If I'm serious I can do all kinds of illegal things so long as I'm not caught. The arguement that "abuse is illegal so it won't happen" could be used to justify the end of the anonymous ballot and all kinds of other encroachments. Abuse happens inspite of its legality.

This information is being made public SPECIFCIALLY to enable people to put pressure on donators. Its an equal opportunity tool. It lets the rich put pressure on the poor, the poor put pressue on the rich, and neighbors put pressure on neighbors. All political campaigns need in order to strategize is breakdowns by district. The specific names and addresses only serve one purpose, and this is it.

] [ .. I love this idea. I don't know where the best place
] would be to get the money for printing, etc. such a thing,
] given how strapped most states are.

I don't think its very expensive. We're talking about a short booklet. Black and white on newsprint. Mailing costs. I want to know how expensive it is. I'd be willing to take a tax hike for it. I'll bet its so cheap that most government programs pale in comparison. I'll bet the LWV knows how much it would cost. Certainly, other states know.