"Parties Weigh Risks of Passing Soft-Money Plate", By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
"Republicans have been raising more of the direct contributions from individuals known as hard money, which is subject to strict dollar limits but remains legal."
As I expect 'direction-seeking cluster analysis' would disclose, the spirit of this 'hard-money law' is easily circumvented - all folks have to do is divy-up the total of their 'contributions' among associates who will forward 'their' portion of the overall 'contribution', with respect to which they act as an 'agent', to 'party HQ', where it's 'knit back together', with 'major credit' being given to the 'progenitor' at the initiating end of the Charde, and 'minor credit' [for being 'good players'] to the intermediary 'agents'.
Of course, such 'schemes' would be Prosecuted as Organized Crime, if it weren't the case that 'politicians' were involved.
Why is it a Crime?
Because it's a 'ponzi-scheme' whose 'dupe' is The Citizenry, The Constitution of The United States of America, and America itself.
The "invereted" energydynamics that readily-distinguish between various types of such Organized Crime are 'hilarious'.
It's also readily-detectable in the way that those who commit such Organized Crime stumble all over themselves while trying to 'juggle' all the parameters inherent in their 'movingaway from' Truth. and in their inabilities to accomplish anything else [because all of their energies are being expended in 'juggling' the parameters of their 'moving away from' Truth.
Instead of all of this, why not just breathe Life back into The Citizenry's relationship with The Constitution?
This'd have the welcome Benefit of actually enlisting The Citizenry's Wisdom within Government.
K. P. Collins
"Schmitd! Schmitd! Ve vill build a Shapel!"
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message news:CSEsa.63650$cO3.4256237 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Most of Soft Money Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional", By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Quoting from the New York Times article:
"`It breaks faith with the fundamental principle -- understood by our nation's Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court -- that `debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open,' the Republican-appointed Henderson, who found virtually all major aspects of the law unconstitutional, wrote in a separate document explaining her approach to the ruling."
This's a 'hilarious' 'court decision' - Most of the Founder's were just getting by, and almost none of them actively sought office. Instead, they were called to office by folks who's come to respect them, and they served Honorably, often with great personal sacrifice.
And this 'court' puts elections on the auction block? - in the name of The Founders?
"The decision is at least a partial victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who argued that the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics."
What about the vast majority of the Citizenry's abilities to participate in 'politics'?
You know - "One person one vote"?
K. P. Collins
"KP-PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net%remove%> wrote in message news:q29ia.8918$cO3.535999 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net..
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...