Will the Dems now stop using organizations like Move on... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

onetime2 · 05-09-2004, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
I don't understand. Is anyone in government claiming that 527's are illegal? I thought the argument, at best, was that the loophole should be closed.

I found a nice list of 527's:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/s...exp&sub=topcom

While there is no shortage of liberal/democratic groups, there are certainly a lot of republican/conservative groups in there as well.

So, how did this become a Democratic issue? The Republicans appear to be using the 527's as well, and have been for years.

Yes, the Bush Administration has filed complaints with the FEC claiming they violate the rules of campaign finance reform.

As outlined throughout the thread, it became a Democratic issue when Democratic supporters built massive 527 groups and the leaders of their party constantly said the only reason they support them is to level the playing field with the Bush administration. Look at the quote from Kerry above and tell me why it is he now feels ok that campaign finance reform should be circumvented.

As far as smooth, yeah it's exactly like stealing cookies. Whatever. The point is he had an opportunity to lead and he fell flat on his face and became a follower to what many of the extremist members of his party want (sounds remarkably like the accusations you make about Bush all the time,huh?).

Go ahead and defend the practice but I will be sure to remind you all of your stand whenever the campaign finance reform topic comes up again. Supporting the expanded use of 527 groups will only serve to allow them to proliferate. You're trading one bad form of campaign finance for another. Way to go all.

HarmlessRabbit · 05-09-2004, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Go ahead and defend the practice but I will be sure to remind you all of your stand whenever the campaign finance reform topic comes up again. Supporting the expanded use of 527 groups will only serve to allow them to proliferate. You're trading one bad form of campaign finance for another. Way to go all.

Oh, I think the loophole should be closed in a fair way, but I also think the current hearings are politically charged, and are timed in a way to hurt Kerry, who is still fundraising, and help Bush, who already has a lot of money in the bank.

After this election cycle, it's certainly a good time to take a look at 527's and close them if necessary.

smooth · 05-09-2004, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Go ahead and defend the practice but I will be sure to remind you all of your stand whenever the campaign finance reform topic comes up again. Supporting the expanded use of 527 groups will only serve to allow them to proliferate. You're trading one bad form of campaign finance for another. Way to go all.

I never argued for campaign finance reform. I don't want to support politicians' bullshit promises with public money.

The only thing I've ever supported is carving out public access on the public airwaves.

If someone has private money, they have the right to use it how they want. Funding political expression seems to be a fundamental right. Securing that possibility for someone who isn't a billionaire, however, would level the playing field better than paying everyone's advertising costs out of the public coffer, in my opinion.

My comment wasn't about stealing cookies. It was about the observation that you wouldn't ever support Kerry, so why keep pointing out how you [onetime's whiny voice]can't support him after THIS[/onetime's whiny voice]?

pan6467 · 05-09-2004, 05:32 PM

OneTime I give up, you and I agree too much on this issue.

The universe is now outta synch somewhere, and there are 2 people who agreed on everything now fighting.

See what you and I have done.

I reiterate............ I'm comin to join ya Elizabeth, I'll have a Winston in 1 hand, a nacho cheese Slim Jim in the other and a full 14 club golfbag around my shoulder, waiting for Onetime for that eternal tee off.

onetime2 · 05-10-2004, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
My comment wasn't about stealing cookies. It was about the observation that you wouldn't ever support Kerry, so why keep pointing out how you [onetime's whiny voice]can't support him after THIS[/onetime's whiny voice]?

That's where you are wrong. There are plenty of things I dislike about Bush and if there was a candidate who stood firmly for certain things I believe in I would back them. It doesn't matter if they're Republican Democrat or Other. Respect has a lot to do with where my vote goes. Showing leadership earns my respect, skirting the rules a candidate allegedly trumpets support for doesn't.

onetime2 · 05-10-2004, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
OneTime I give up, you and I agree too much on this issue.

The universe is now outta synch somewhere, and there are 2 people who agreed on everything now fighting.

See what you and I have done.

I reiterate............ I'm comin to join ya Elizabeth, I'll have a Winston in 1 hand, a nacho cheese Slim Jim in the other and a full 14 club golfbag around my shoulder, waiting for Onetime for that eternal tee off.

Amazing isn't it? And yet we can disagree on some points and still remain civil. If that's not a lesson for some respondents in this thread I don't know what is.

onetime2 · 05-10-2004, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Oh, I think the loophole should be closed in a fair way, but I also think the current hearings are politically charged, and are timed in a way to hurt Kerry, who is still fundraising, and help Bush, who already has a lot of money in the bank.

After this election cycle, it's certainly a good time to take a look at 527's and close them if necessary.

If by hearings you mean the hearing of the FEC complaint, it will have no effect in this election as the decision is too far off.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 06:48 AM

Yee ha! Let the unregulated buying of influence rise to a whole new level. Way to go!

The question now becomes, what questionable strategy will be used to "relevel" the playing field now that the Bush/RNC side will stoop to following the Kerry/DNC's stupendous example of avoiding campaign finance reform?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ads/index.html

Quote:

FEC turns back spending limits by independent groups
Observers predict rise in negative ads
From Robert Yoon
CNN Political Unit
Friday, May 14, 2004 Posted: 9:51 AM EDT (1351 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Federal Election Commission Thursday rejected a proposal to rein in the unlimited fundraising and spending power of independent political groups attempting to influence the outcome of this year's presidential race.

The decision allows so-called 527 groups, named after a section in federal tax law, to continue legally pouring millions of dollars into television ads and partisan get-out-the-vote efforts using unregulated "soft money."

Congress banned the use of soft money by political parties and certain political groups in 2002, but that law did not address activity by 527s.

As a result, a number of high-profile Democratic groups have emerged this year attacking President Bush and drawing cries of foul from GOP officials as well as from the Bush campaign.

"We obviously feel both pleased and vindicated," said Sarah Leonard, a spokeswoman for the Media Fund and America Coming Together, two of the Democratic groups at the heart of the 527 controversy.

"We've maintained for many months that the proposal under consideration, a fundamental reordering of politics and a significant impingement on political speech, was too complicated and important to be jammed through the commission," she said.

Although Republican officials had called on the FEC to impose strict regulations on 527s, the commission's refusal to do so effectively clears the way for Republican groups to raise and spend soft money for the same kind of political activity that Democratic groups have been engaged in for months. (RNC opens assault on anti-Bush groups)

"A lot of donors who were holding back are now going to feel free to give," said David Keating, executive director of the Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax organization and one of few Republican-friendly 527s that has been active this campaign.

"This clarity is going to be really helpful to Republican donors. Basically we can say, 'Come on in, the water's fine. Everybody into the pool. Let's go and really get our message out there.' "

Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot and Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie called the FEC decision "irresponsible" in a joint statement.

"The 2004 elections will now be a free-for-all. Thanks to the deliberate inaction by the Federal Election Commission, the battle of the 527's is likely to escalate to a full-scale, two-sided war," they said.

Republican FEC commissioner Michael Toner, who authored the failed proposal, agrees that the panel's decision will lead to a proliferation of negative attack ads from both sides.

The November race "will be like the wild West," said Toner. "Both Republicans and Democrats will take advantage of the new legal landscape. We're going to see 527s spend unlimited amounts of money on attack ads and partisan activity. That's the bottom line."

Democratic 527 groups such as the Media Fund, ACT, and the MoveOn.Org Voter Fund have helped Kerry overcome the Bush campaign's considerable financial advantage.

According to estimates by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's consultant on ad spending, the Kerry campaign and Democratic groups have spent a combined total of at least $63 million on television ads, compared to at least $56 million by the Bush campaign.

Democratic sources put Bush's total ad spending at closer to $70 million, while Kerry's ad spending without the Democratic groups is at least $26 million.

smooth · 05-14-2004, 09:24 AM

I don't understand your problem with advertisements.

I have a problem with donors dumping money into people's pockets, but I don't see any justification for restricting donors rights to political speech. If a bunch of people, or one wealthy person, wants to spend millions on supporting a measure or a person, go for it.

The only restructing I support is making sure that money doesn't go into candidates' pockets and opening a minimum airspace for people to use who don't have the millions to pay for it.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I don't understand your problem with advertisements.

I have a problem with donors dumping money into people's pockets, but I don't see any justification for restricting donors rights to political speech. If a bunch of people, or one wealthy person, wants to spend millions on supporting a measure or a person, go for it.

The only restructing I support is making sure that money doesn't go into candidates' pockets and opening a minimum airspace for people to use who don't have the millions to pay for it.

So, just because the money doesn't go into their pockets it can't possibly influence them? Allowing people to have a "minimum airspace" to make their points known will somehow counter the influence that can be exerted by groups spending tens of millions? Not likely.

These groups make it too easy to buy influence. That's one of the main reasons campaign finance reform was championed and that's what's being subverted. This Presidential election will have more spending on advertising than any in history and the spend will only grow in the future.

smooth · 05-14-2004, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
So, just because the money doesn't go into their pockets it can't possibly influence them? Allowing people to have a "minimum airspace" to make their points known will somehow counter the influence that can be exerted by groups spending tens of millions? Not likely.

These groups make it too easy to buy influence. That's one of the main reasons campaign finance reform was championed and that's what's being subverted. This Presidential election will have more spending on advertising than any in history and the spend will only grow in the future.

I'm not in for countering the influence groups who spend tens of millions of dollars in our current economy.

If you don't like it, start supporting socialism or communism (which I would prefer).

But your current stance undermines and contradicts, in my opinion, your current support for our capitalist economy.

I would also prefer you not put words in my mouth. I'm not doing it to you. I didn't say that candidates can't be influenced by other people campaigning on their behalf.

If you think it will, why not just type: "allowing other people to campaign on a candidate's behalf will influence him or her just as much as putting the money in his or her pocket because..."

As it stands, you haven't provided any support for that assertion. I don't believe they influence candidates equally, but I certainly didn't say that, either. The more important point, to me, is whether the government has a right to restrict people from spending money in the political arena when it doesn't directly amount to a pay-off. I don't think it does. That's one of the side-effects of living in a capitalist society that holds freedom of political speech and action as one of its highest values.

I think the benefits outweigh these costs. I support equalizing the field by providing guarantees and opportunities, not by placing restrictions on actions.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth

But your current stance undermines and contradicts, in my opinion, your current support for our capitalist economy.

Only if you believe that within a "capitalist economy" everything is for sale. Corruption occurs in every form of economy and the fair representation of all citizens calls for the avenues of corruption to be limited wherever possible.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I would also prefer you not put words in my mouth. I'm not doing it to you. I didn't say that candidates can't be influenced by other people campaigning on their behalf.

If you think it will, why not just type: "allowing other people to campaign on a candidate's behalf will influence him or her just as much as putting the money in his or her pocket because..."

As it stands, you haven't provided any support for that assertion. I don't believe they influence candidates equally, but I certainly didn't say that, either. The more important point, to me, is whether the government has a right to restrict people from spending money in the political arena when it doesn't directly amount to a pay-off. I don't think it does. That's one of the side-effects of living in a capitalist society that holds freedom of political speech and action as one of its highest values.

I think the benefits outweigh these costs. I support equalizing the field by providing guarantees and opportunities, not by placing restrictions on actions.

I've put no words in your mouth. You pointedly said that so long as the money doesn't end up in their pockets you don't see it being a problem.

The government has a responsibility to keep the political process free from unfair representation the current rules allow those with larger pocket books to freely garner more power and influence.

smooth · 05-14-2004, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Only if you believe that within a "capitalist economy" everything is for sale.

Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of capitalism as I understand it.

I haven't seen anything in the US culture to rebut the notion that everything has its price. I don't know any capitalists who would deny that, either.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of capitalism as I understand it.

I haven't seen anything in the US culture to rebut the notion that everything has its price. I don't know any capitalists who would deny that, either.

There are plenty of examples. You can not legally buy:

a person

political favors

your way out of legal charges

etc, etc, etc.

smooth · 05-14-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
I've put no words in your mouth. You pointedly said that so long as the money doesn't end up in their pockets you don't see it being a problem.

The government has a responsibility to keep the political process free from unfair representation the current rules allow those with larger pocket books to freely garner more power and influence.

I "pointedly" typed that I didn't see a justification for restricting one's right to political speech.

You interpreted that I didn't have a problem with that. You also interpreted that I believe that unless money goes directly into someone's pocket, then they won't be influenced.

Both of those interpretations were incorrect assumptions you made based off your caricature of my belief system. Just rely on what I type instead of arguing against what you think I believe.

I'll lay it out for you more clearly so you don't continue to stumble:

1) In our society, I don't see any justification for limiting one's political action, short of barring people from directly paying candidates to return favors. I'm not even sure there is a justifcation to limit buying people, but our value system has grown to denounce that.

2) The people with the most money get to purchase political power and influence. As far as I know, this has always been the case. This doesn't equate to unfair represenation. If people want more power and influence, they are free to make more money and purchase it. Those who have worked hard in life should be free to spend their money how they want--including purchasing more power and influence.

3) In our society, I would rather we provide for opportunity and rights to level the playing field as much as possible than restricting others' rights.

4) I have a big problem with all of this. I don't think it's morally right. I think that some people will never be able to gain wealth and its accompanying power and influence due to their lack of the means of production. I think that everything is, and ought to be, for sale in a capitalist society. That's the definition. To undermine that is to create further structural inconsistencies that serve to undermine its legitimacy.

In short, don't claim to be one thing and do another. I would rather we were consistent than inconsistent because then we have to continue to layer on regulation after regulation that doesn't make sense. Then we have to create a justification for our acions--like we are doing now.

5) I'm not a capitalist because of the problems I have identified above. But at least I don't claim to be a capitalist and then refuse to act like one becaue I don't have money or power. I don't think I can claim to support capitalism only when it suits me. I don't think you should either. I think you should support capitalism with all its benefits and warts, or not support it at all.

smooth · 05-14-2004, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
There are plenty of examples. You can not legally buy:

a person

political favors

your way out of legal charges

etc, etc, etc.

person: employees

political favors: PACs

legal charges: unnecessary since wealthy people are less likely to be charged in the first place; the laws are written to penalize actions of the lower class moreso than the actions of the wealthy; finally, when all else fails, the more money one has the better attorneys he or she can buy = acquittal.

These are the inconsistencies that I am referring to that undermine our system as a whole and decrease its legitimacy. Either be consitent or restructure the economic and value system.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I'm not even sure there is a justifcation to limit buying people, but our value system has grown to denounce that.

Alright, so you don't support capitalism but you don't see any substantial reason to believe that buying people off is wrong.

Quote:

2) As far as I know, this has always been the case. This doesn't equate to unfair represenation.

Being able to influence decisions (including spending the nation's money, raising taxes, creating laws, etc) to a greater extent because you spend money to elect a politician is absolutely unfair representation. Just because it's "always been the case" it doesn't mean it's fair.

Quote:

3) In our society, I would rather we provide for opportunity and rights to level the playing field as much as possible than restricting others' rights.

I guess I don't understand why this is even an argument. If anything it supports my view since the unequal playing field in terms of opportunity that allows the "rich" to influence politics expands the supposed inequality of opportunity.

Quote:

4) I have a big problem with all of this. I don't think it's morally right. I think that some people will never be able to gain wealth and its accompanying power and influence due to their lack of the means of production. I think that everything is, and ought to be, for sale in a capitalist society. That's the definition. To undermine that is to create further structural inconsistencies that serve to undermine its legitimacy.

The definition of a capitalistic society is not that everything is for sale. It's that the means of production and sale of goods is privately owned rather than government or "collectively" owned.

Quote:

5) I'm not a capitalist because of the problems I have identified above. But at least I don't claim to be a capitalist and then refuse to act like one becaue I don't have money or power. I don't think I can claim to support capitalism only when it suits me. I don't think you should either. I think you should support capitalism with all its benefits and warts, or not support it at all.

Your definition of a capitalist obviously differs from mine. Your belief that everything should be for sale in a capitalistic society conflicts with the real definition of capitalism. Further, there is no reason that the political process of a society based on private ownership of business and markets of exchange can not be subject to regulation. THe two are not mutually exclusive.

onetime2 · 05-14-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
person: employees

political favors: PACs

legal charges: unnecessary since wealthy people are less likely to be charged in the first place; the laws are written to penalize actions of the lower class moreso than the actions of the wealthy; finally, when all else fails, the more money one has the better attorneys he or she can buy = acquittal.

These are the inconsistencies that I am referring to that undermine our system as a whole and decrease its legitimacy. Either be consitent or restructure the economic and value system.

It's obvious there is little room for discussion between us as we apparently live in entirely different worlds.

Employees are not owned by companies.

PACs can not legally buy off politicians.

Laws are not written to unequally punish the "lower class" and there are countless cases of the rich being charged and going to prison.

HarmlessRabbit · 05-14-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Laws are not written to unequally punish the "lower class" and there are countless cases of the rich being charged and going to prison.

Actually, there are plenty of examples where this is the case. For example: crack cocaine, used by the poor, carries much harsher mandatory penalties than normal cocaine, used by the rich. And certainly it's the case that a more expensive lawyer equals a lesser sentence. O.J., anyone?

smooth · 05-15-2004, 12:08 AM

ah shit, harmless, thanks for the support but I wish you hadn't fallen for the red herring like I did.

All that other crap aside:

explain how you can support RJ Reynolds spending whatever it wants promoting its product, but deny MoveOn from spending whatever it wants promoting its product?

please explain how you are classifying the former as a "good*" and the latter as not a "good"?

Are you basing this on your subjective interpretation of the content of the message?

do you believe our government should limit some speech over the airwaves based on content?

who should decide which content to limit?

specifically, should it limit political speech?

should it only do so once a particular group reaches a certain position of power (say, X amount of money to spend)?

why would this not be counter-intutitive, wherein the victor loses the spoils?

* by good I assume you mean commodity. please explain what you think a commodity is. You seem to think it has an objective meaning, rather than two things a buyer and seller can agree to trade in an open market.

Do you think a commodity can be an idea, a service, or must it only be a tangible "thing" as you understand things to exist?

I have to say that for an economist, you sure have an odd way of viewing commodities and market exchanges. When you argued that corporations don't purchase (and consequently own) employees' labor, I became very confused of your notion of commodities and free exchange.

Hopefully you'll answer these questions so we can make sure we are using the same definitions and assumptions.

smooth · 05-15-2004, 12:26 AM

Please don't waste my time if you aren't going to read my replies.

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Alright, so you don't support capitalism but you don't see any substantial reason to believe that buying people off is wrong.

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I have a big problem with all of this. I don't think it's morally right.

Quote:

Your definition of a capitalist obviously differs from mine.

I can live with that.

Quote:

Your belief that everything should be for sale in a capitalistic society conflicts with the real definition of capitalism.

Your first sentence was fine, you probably should have left it at that. Even if there is a "real" definition of capitalism, only you believe you have a monopoly on knowing it.

onetime2 · 05-15-2004, 07:57 AM

Don't worry about it smooth. I won't "waste your time" any more. As stated you and I live in completely different worlds and there's no chance that we can find common ground on this (or likely other) issues.

Harmless Rabbit, crack laws were not written to target the poor. They were written to target crack users and dealers. You can throw out individual cases of money buying better representation but it doesn't mean the only way you get "fair" representation is by having money. And FWIW, the police work and prosecution in the OJ case were pathetic and plenty of lawyers not on the "Dream Team" could have picked the case apart. Additionally, press coverage was a big factor and there are plenty of cases that get press coverage even though the defendant is poor.

If you'd like to start a thread about it feel free since Smooth has already done a hell of a job hijacking this discussion about campaign finance reform and the obvious intention of the political parties to bypass all regulation of their influence peddling.

05-09-2004, 05:32 PM	#44 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	OneTime I give up, you and I agree too much on this issue. The universe is now outta synch somewhere, and there are 2 people who agreed on everything now fighting. See what you and I have done. I reiterate............ I'm comin to join ya Elizabeth, I'll have a Winston in 1 hand, a nacho cheese Slim Jim in the other and a full 14 club golfbag around my shoulder, waiting for Onetime for that eternal tee off. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-14-2004, 09:24 AM	#49 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I don't understand your problem with advertisements. I have a problem with donors dumping money into people's pockets, but I don't see any justification for restricting donors rights to political speech. If a bunch of people, or one wealthy person, wants to spend millions on supporting a measure or a person, go for it. The only restructing I support is making sure that money doesn't go into candidates' pockets and opening a minimum airspace for people to use who don't have the millions to pay for it. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

05-15-2004, 12:08 AM	#61 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	ah shit, harmless, thanks for the support but I wish you hadn't fallen for the red herring like I did. All that other crap aside: explain how you can support RJ Reynolds spending whatever it wants promoting its product, but deny MoveOn from spending whatever it wants promoting its product? please explain how you are classifying the former as a "good" and the latter as not a "good"? Are you basing this on your subjective interpretation of the content of the message? do you believe our government should limit some speech over the airwaves based on content? who should decide which content to limit? specifically, should it limit political speech? should it only do so once a particular group reaches a certain position of power (say, X amount of money to spend)? why would this not be counter-intutitive, wherein the victor loses the spoils? by good I assume you mean commodity. please explain what you think a commodity is. You seem to think it has an objective meaning, rather than two things a buyer and seller can agree to trade in an open market. Do you think a commodity can be an idea, a service, or must it only be a tangible "thing" as you understand things to exist? I have to say that for an economist, you sure have an odd way of viewing commodities and market exchanges. When you argued that corporations don't purchase (and consequently own) employees' labor, I became very confused of your notion of commodities and free exchange. Hopefully you'll answer these questions so we can make sure we are using the same definitions and assumptions. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

05-15-2004, 07:57 AM	#63 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Don't worry about it smooth. I won't "waste your time" any more. As stated you and I live in completely different worlds and there's no chance that we can find common ground on this (or likely other) issues. Harmless Rabbit, crack laws were not written to target the poor. They were written to target crack users and dealers. You can throw out individual cases of money buying better representation but it doesn't mean the only way you get "fair" representation is by having money. And FWIW, the police work and prosecution in the OJ case were pathetic and plenty of lawyers not on the "Dream Team" could have picked the case apart. Additionally, press coverage was a big factor and there are plenty of cases that get press coverage even though the defendant is poor. If you'd like to start a thread about it feel free since Smooth has already done a hell of a job hijacking this discussion about campaign finance reform and the obvious intention of the political parties to bypass all regulation of their influence peddling. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant. Last edited by onetime2; 05-15-2004 at 08:02 AM..