If campaign finance laws didn't so severely limit the amount of money an individual could give a candidate, then 527s would hold but a fraction of their current influence. These 527s that so many people, including the president, have called to ban are in many ways a creation of the current campaign finance structure. Allow donors to give whatever to whomever they please, and 527s would mostly evaporate.

Take George Soros, an unpopular fool who wants to see John Kerry elected president. Because the campaign finance laws restrict what he can give Kerry directly to a few thousand dollars, he gives copious amounts to pro-Kerry 527s--nearly $13,000,000 to be a bit more precise. In this way, the campaign finance laws encourage shadiness. Soros is able to aid Kerry in such a way that doesn't directly reflect on Kerry's campaign. If Soros weren't restricted in the amount he could directly give to Kerry, we would know more clearly what monied interests stand behind the candidate. Under the current system, both Soros and Kerry can claim only a tenuous connection with the other. The current campaign finance structure makes things murky, when everything should be transparent to voters.

Don't like the influence 527s play in politics? Banning them outright is the government solution. Allowing unlimited giving to candidates and causes is the free market solution.

Dan, why did you call George Soros an "unpopular fool"? The man is a billionare, not a politian. Say what you will about his politics, but the man did not set out to be popular.

I also feel that I must further mark the point the democracy is not a market. There is no "free-market" solution to democracy. Democracy is the idea that the government derives its powers from the consent of the goverened. To establish that consent elections are held to determine the leaders of government. This process is not an economic one. It is not a process that is governered by the laws of supply and demand. The election process is governed by the Consitution and election laws created by the government. Should the government deem it nessacary that these laws must be changed in order to achieve greater democracy, it is entirely within its rights to do so.

Democracy is not a market. In fact, the application of market principles to the democratic process onlt seeks to corrupt it.

I digress for a moment.... U2's latest masterpiece is due out November 23rd.

DB, what are you advancing by taking acception with the author's characterizating the popularity or unpopularity of Soros? What point are you making?

You seem to post on everything, and I enjoy every fourth post of yours. I appreciate them as well as the frequency with wqhich you post, but the stream of consciousness thing with you posting about seemingly benign matters is a bit much. You're just being a nudnick when you do that. Consider your first post in this stream:

"Dan, why did you call George Soros an "unpopular fool"? The man is a billionare, not a politian. Say what you will about his politics, but the man did not set out to be popular.

Posted by DB at August 24, 2004 09:18 AM"

I mean, what's the big deal? What was this comment post about? You haven't said anything really. I mean, blogs are indeed unfetterd domains of free thought, free speech, but there's also a sense of community on any given blog, as opposed to hit-box or message board, but you're just needling away for the sake of doing it and needlessly reacting. Was the author's posts about Billionairre's need to be responsive and popular to the massses? No, so what are you advancing or taking acception to or pointing out when you make comment posts like this? I'm just curious. The lack of a concentrated, or for that matter, relevant thought seemes to be lacking wouldn't you agree?

??? Donuts...is there anything they can't do?