From: "Bill Mattox" 

Campaign finance laws will _only_ be enforced against those who are right
of center. The press will see to that.

Those on the Left, by in large, will get a free pass on any and all
violations... as they have to date. (Notice the nearly complete mainstream
blackout of coverage related to McCain's attack upon Gore's problem in this
area in spite of the hordes of cameras that followed him to his return to
the Senate.)

(Also, for example, Gore has the gall to make campaign finance an issue
when, in addition to his own problems in this area, has the following
baggage vis-a-vis Coelho:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/coelho.htm (I'm also wondering if any of
this has anything to do with the overly intrusive census (I lucked out and
actually managed to get the long form))

)

"Randall Parker"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1338d33dd06aecc598a0e3{at}news.barkto.com...
> Here's an article by William Safire about how the Clinton DOJ is doing
what it can to block investigations of the illegal foreign money that
flowed into the DNC.
>    http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/safire/021000safi.html
>
> A thought struck me while reading it: It is a bad idea to have laws that
are going to be very unevenly enforced where the uneven enforcement has as
its goal the promotion of one political party or the other.
>
> The DOJ handling of John Huang, Charlie Trie, Maria Hsia, and all the rest
of them is a demonstration of how campaign finance laws are _not_ going to
be fairly enforced.
>
> The extent of the unfairness will depend on the extent of the corruption
of each administration. But since the most corrupt and shameless
administrations (eg Clinton, Gore, et al) are the ones most in need of
having the laws enforced upon them this brings up a paradox: Campaign
finance laws are only going to get enforced against participants in the
> political process or are either powerless or ethical or both.
>
> So what is the point of having these laws? The laws we have are not
capable of being enforced. There's no point in even pretending. Reno, Gore,
and Clinton have made a mockery of our campaign finance laws.
>
> The argument for unlimited contributions with full disclosure then becomes
far more appealing. IMO, it is easier to enforce the prompt electronic
publishing of all contributions and then let political opponents trace thru
whether the sources look legitimate.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5