RE: Achieving full disclosure

[Joan Johnson <joan@altair.com>]

Let's say we do discover how to identify and disclose contributors to candidates/referendums/issue ads/editorials in a timely manner. Should we then open the flood gates?

Although I stated something like this in an earlier e-mail, I have changed my mind about the validity and benefits of allowing unlimited contributions by any person or organization to any candidate or referendum.

First, more money does not mean tight, responsible content. Less doesn't either; it just means I won't see or hear as much of it. However, if a candidate/issue group can't spend lots of money, then by necessity they would need to craft messages that illuminate what they represent and persuade others that they have the best solution to the problem. I personally regard issue ads much like the old Ginsu knife commercials or the current infomercials that never quote their sources- I don't watch them. 

Second, the inherent problems with providing all candidates with equal amounts of money will be a financial burden to us all. Perhaps not directly, but certainly tangentally. Programs sponsored by states and the federal government will not have as much cash available if unlimited campaign funding exists. The same dollar can't be spent more than once.

I believe that a reasonable and tight budget for all candidates and referendums will out of necessity produce tight, coherent campaigns.

Joan