This is absolutely wrong, Paul. 

The real debate, as applied in campaign finance, is whether via the

power of money to buy repeated advertising, the power of propaganda is

or is not considered to be a corruption or distortion of the will of

the people.  Granted that rationale was imperfectly theorized in

Austin, but it is still the core of the normative debate, as I see it,

within the camp of those who believe in self-government.

Your premise is that repeat advertising obviates freewill and independent judgment.

Your point is an epistemological insult to men and women everywhere.

Your point, at bottom, even while you purport to propose the opposite, is that individual men and women are incapable of self-government.

Nothing could be more... well, I'll leave at erroneous.

Steve

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com> wrote:

I think, however, that when "private" citizens temporarily take the
role of (sovereign) voters and via elections form "We the People" the
otherwise "private" citizens are acting as governors.  See
Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws. (Montesquieu is the most-quoted
political theorist both before and after the American Revolution).

This is why our system is called "self-government" and why Adams
referred to a people fit to be "their own governors."  Certainly this
point is most clearly seen when voters vote on initiatives and
referenda, exercising direct law-making powers.  But in regular
elections where citizens delegate their power to an elected
representative, the very act of delegating shows the citizens
(temporary, but critical) superiority of status.  Thus, we often refer
to the elected as the "servants" of the public, or public servants.

All the way back to Montesquieu, it has been recognized that citizens
in a republic occupy two different statuses, that of a subject (nearly
all of the time) and that of a sovereign (in the process of voting or
exercising their suffrage, as Jefferson's copy of Montesquieu states
in his own handwriting, for emphasis...).  So, when voting I think it
is fair to say that accountability applies in connection with voting
and also with voters.  The government must be accountable for a fair
ballot count and election process, and the voters accountable to each
other to not so distort the process in any way such that a "free
election" is not had:  free from force, fraud, undue influence or any
other corrupting influence or power that acts to distort the
measurement of the voice of the will of the People.  I think this is
clearly what the guarantee of "free" elections means, at its core.

The real debate, as applied in campaign finance, is whether via the
power of money to buy repeated advertising, the power of propaganda is
or is not considered to be a corruption or distortion of the will of
the people.  Granted that rationale was imperfectly theorized in
Austin, but it is still the core of the normative debate, as I see it,
within the camp of those who believe in self-government.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 4/1/11, Steve Hoersting <hoersting@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you on this point, Paul: no disclosure/transparency in *
> government* is a problem.  (Indeed, you might have penned the op-ed along
> with the two journalists).
>
> However, no disclosure/transparency in the affairs of private associations
> is the rule.
>
> Disclosure/transparency of a private association's independent expenditures
> -- the exception to the rule for private associations -- cannot further
> interests in "corruption," only the "informational" interest.
>
> People on my side say that when are demanding disclosure under the exception
> to the rule for private associations -- to further the "informational"
> interest -- it is important to consider the scope of disclosure.  In
> determining the scope we consider the cost.
>
> Which gets us back to the point of the op-ed (and of my post):  Even the
> strongest proponents of IE disclosure, and I'd put Team Obama in that camp,
> see that there are *costs* in disclosure.  Or at least their actions, well
> documented in the op-ed, suggest that they see do.
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/11, Steve Hoersting <hoersting@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The theme of their *WaPo* piece is that the Obama administration is not
>> at
>> > all keen on disclosure.
>> >
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wheres-the-transparency-that-obama-promised/2011/03/31/AFipwHCC_print.html
>> >[snip] -- we get the sense that there may be
>> > well something to at least two theories about disclosure, and that even
>> > disclosure's advocates get it:
>> >
>> > 1) that the burden of disclosure must be balanced against its costs
>> >
>> > 2) that disclosure, either demanded or provided, is often a tool and
>> > accelerant for retribution
>>
>> What I "get" is that without disclosure/transparency, accountability
>> is not possible.  Who can really be in favor of un-accountability in
>> government?
>>
>> What is being styled as "retribution" is at best a minor percentage of
>> the overall and critical process of accountability in government.
>>
>> --
>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>> P.O. Box 1
>> Ishpeming, MI  49849
>> lehto.paul@gmail.com
>> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Hoersting
> CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS
> 124 West Street South
> Suite 201
> Alexandria, Virginia 22314
> SHoersting@campaignfreedom.org
> www.campaignfreedom.org
> (703) 894-6800 phone
>

--

Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)

--

Steve Hoersting
CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 West Street South
Suite 201
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
SHoersting@campaignfreedom.org
www.campaignfreedom.org
(703) 894-6800 phone