how will this help...?

[Cari Tusing <kiheh@aol.com>]

With the mandatory disclosure of lists from campaign fundraising, this choice advocates one thing only-- that the information is available.  Certainly I personally would not want to vote for someone who received money from, say, the KKK.

But I believe that the "average American" will not avidly read the sources of their candidate's funding.  With the power of the party, most people vote party line unless repeatedly faced with opposing ideas from the candidate that they thought they supported.  Forcing the fundraising lists to become public shift the blame from a politician who accepts the money to the person who unwittingly votes for them, not realizing that the organization donating will now have influence over the candidate's opinion.  It is now the responsibility of the individual voter to go out and research the groups' stance on key legislative agenda and make sure that the group and they themselves agree.

It also gives responsibility and power to the media, which I do not think is a good idea because of the inherent bias within the press (whether it be liberal or conservative).  If it so wishes, the media can publicize the negative (or positive) aspects of a donor/group and slant public opinion whichever way the information suits.

So...  I ask how will simply publicizing donor lists add to the accountability of a politician?  I see it as giving the responsibility to the increasingly apathetic voter and the possibly biased press.

Cari