RE: opening for choice 3

[Ellen Russak <erussak@aol.com>]

Margaret Holt writes: "... some suggest that simply reading 3 pt. type listings of disclosures doesn't mean much of anything.
What's behind these contributions? Is there evidence of quid pro quo?"

This is the big problem with disclosure.  I strongly support it - particularly if it must be posted on the internet immediately.  There also must be teeth in the penalties for violations.  

However, without knowing who the donators are and if they represent a special interest, it is hard to know until long after the election when the research has been done, just who you really voted for. There is probably a solution to this problem with disclosure but I'm not legally savvy enough to know what would be allowable.

I support disclosure in combination with contribution caps and other restrictions - I certainly wouldn't view it as anything but one more piece of the puzzle of CFR.  

Ellen