Skip to main content

View Diary: Corrupt Democracy 21 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Could the presence of those men (none)
    be disguised in the twenty-first century, with the pervasive media and Internet? Probably not. And if they gave money to the candidate, they'd have to be disclosed.

    I just think all this talk of regulation is junk, both of the Internet and campaign financing.

    •  there already is disclosure (none)
      You can look up contributors on the FEC's website.  The search is cumbersome, confusing, and can have significant time lags.  I don't see how this solves any problems.  Besides, contributors can always hide their true contribution amounts by bundling their contributions (pledging a given amount to a candidate, but dividing that total figure amongst numerous supposed contributors), or their identities by contributing through an ambiguously-named PAC.  
    •  Of course they could (none)
      What about Coingate? What about Jack Abramoff? What about Duke Cunningham? Faith in the media and the internet is one thing, but there's surprisingly LITTLE caught by the public eye.

      Some other important points are that disclosure is not immediate. It's not released until after a certain period. So the last cycle of a campaign is never reported until AFTER the campaign is over. Therefore, if you pumped a bunch of bad money into last minute races, no one would know until after the race is over. Hell, the Senate doesn't even have electronic disclosure, so numbers posted for the quarter ending in July were unavailable to the public on Election Day.

      "If Kaine...can win by 6 points, then it's safe to say this is no longer a red state. Virginia is now a purple state" - Chuck Todd

      by VirginiaBelle on Tue Dec 06, 2005 at 12:53:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site