XARK 3.0

  • Xark began as a group blog in June 2005 but continues today as founder Dan Conover's primary blog-home. Posts by longtime Xark authors Janet Edens and John Sloop may also appear alongside Dan's here from time to time, depending on whatever.

Xark media

  • ALIENS! SEX! MORE ALIENS! AND DUBYA, TOO! Handcrafted, xarky science fiction, lovingly typeset for your home printer!



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2005

Statcounter has my back

« Reform the media? How 2009. | Main | The ultimate unbundling »

Thursday, November 04, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'll second that. And I'll raise you a publicly funded election system. (Jason says, "If you think they howled about health care reform, imagine what they'll do if serious campaign finance reform begins.) I think the time now is ripe to move to a set-amount, publicly funded election system. People right, left and in the middle are sick of the ugliness and waste.

Addison Ingle

So,George Soros and the Lewis family of Progressive Insurance can give millions, as can the Koch brothers, along with SEIU and NEA and every other union that collects dues for campaigns, and NOW, but SCANA, which supports positions that favor its growth (and shareholder return through dividends) cannot? Better your resolution state that only individuals, paying individually, be allowed to make campaign contributions. No bundling, no pacs, nothing but citizens funding through personal action. I'm just about tired of organized groups of all stripes using money to derive legislation that results in some sort of business/regulatory advantage.


I agree, Ad. The shell game is getting old on BOTH sides. I'm tired of being told that I have to guess whether the pea is beneath the red shell or the blue shell when I strongly suspect that the pea was palmed long ago.


Hi Ad: I've added a section at the top to clarify my intention regarding unions. And while I'm very close to agreeing with you on the group aspect, I didn't touch that issue because I don't see how you can open that can without running afoul of the constitutional rights to association and free speech. I've tried to address only one aspect of the first amendment and its interpretation based on a legal precedent from the Guilded Age.

And as you know, all I'm really trying to do with this is draw a distinction between a person's right to free speech (protected for all) and a citizen's right to political participation (which I'm attempting to link to untaxed political spending). If we could do that thing, I think I would be satisfied with all sorts of reasonable compromises.

Jason: While the rules of politics apply to all parties, the effort here isn't to reform human nature, but to remove the moral hazard of unlimited influence by non-citizens. And in American politics today, the power of those non-citizens is vastly weighted in favor of the GOP.

My feeling is: to free the voice of classic conservatism, support this bill.


Multi-national companies pumping secret millions into our "democracy" to get politicians elected who will vote for their interests in a highly effective, long-term symbiotic arrangement that no one knows about because journalism is dead.

In what universe does this not scare the piss out of you?

Addison Ingle


I appreciate the modification and clarification - and feel much better about the resolution. Should we also consider a further modification so as to forbid a candidate from self-funding their campaigns?

As a former member of AARP, and an eligible candidate for membership in the VFW, I note the disconnect between their PAC endorsements and member sentiments on recent issues. Potomac fever run amok!

The comments to this entry are closed.