RE: Choice 3

[Joan Johnson <joan@altair.com>]

It is not clear to me how "full disclosure" will assist anyone in determining who/what backs the candidate or the legislation. In the effort to regulate full disclosure, there would necessarily have to be a group/organization whose responsibility would be to verify the money source. There are many creative ways to disguise the source of the contributions. In a fast moving election season, time may be the prohibitive factor in verifying the money trail.

The idea of turning campaign financing into a capitalistic venture implying that this will assure us most of the time into getting qualified candidates leaves me uncomfortable. I have seen the effects of capital/competitive approaches to communications and can tell you from personal experience, my phone service isn't any cheaper nor is service more dependable since deregulation. It would appear that power in California may have fallen into the same box. 

Let the money roll, if for no other reason than it will happen anyway. But as someone else has suggested, let's have a national voting period where no results can not be released until all polling places are closed, have a single primary day across the country, declare a campaign season (like a football season) and during that time let the ads and the editorials flow.

>From what I have seen and from what others have said (thank you Jay), no lobby group, newspaper, nor television network is immune from corporate money.

Money is indeed property and especially in the United States folks ought to have the right to handle their property anyway they choose.

Joan