Replies

LOL! I agree that the idea of a Republican machine often seems worthy of a snicker!

So long as you realize that you have to backtrack on your Liddy Dole comments to keep the main thrust of your argument consistent.

I also favor full disclosure of contributors, an idea championed by none other than the conservative icon Alan Keyes (well, he's an icon to many on this board). Interestingly, Keyes also thought that campaign contributions should be limited to individuals ("No ballot vote, no dollar vote" was his mantra).

I still am repulsed by the idea that a group of like-minded citizens who incorporate to pool resources to advocate for an issue near and dear to their heart are restricted from saying anything about a candidate near an election. Why not just say that any "group" running ads, regardless of their mode of financial organization, must fully disclose all their contributors instead of outlawing speech by certain kinds of such organizations?

I am not a great worrier about the power of soft money but that appears to be the concern of the CFR. This means I don't have to backtrack on Liddy since I don't think that was the source of her victory. She won principlely imho because of name recognition and personality.

I must admit I pretty much agree with Keyes on that, it is inconceivable to me that the Founders would approve of Billionaires having the power to sway the votes of millions.
They would believe that such power in the Plutocracy would be the very essence of Tyranny. We must recall that even the very richest of that day had little cash almost all their wealth was in land, slaves or other illiquid assets. Thus, such a worry did not exist.

Nothing would prevent those citizens from doing what you what if they form a PAC to do it. Or if they fund it with hard money (no that doesn't mean the CFR boosts gold bugs.)