<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AT&amp;T Case Shows Supreme Court Isn&#8217;t Big On Privacy Rights For Companies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://paidcontent.org/2011/01/20/419-att-case-shows-supreme-court-isnt-big-on-privacy-rights-for-companies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://paidcontent.org/2011/01/20/419-att-case-shows-supreme-court-isnt-big-on-privacy-rights-for-companies/</link>
	<description>The economics of digital content</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 21:53:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom_Beebe</title>
		<link>http://paidcontent.org/2011/01/20/419-att-case-shows-supreme-court-isnt-big-on-privacy-rights-for-companies/#comment-81919</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom_Beebe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paidcontent.wp.gostage.it/2011/01/20/419-att-case-shows-supreme-court-isnt-big-on-privacy-rights-for-companies/#comment-81919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#039;s an amamendment to address the broader issue raised in my earlier post..

(Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}

No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution.  The identity and extent of contributions to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

No person may be elected or appointed to either house of Congress more than two times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual  contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.

The term-limits will serve to diminish the motive of any individual or group to who may wish to influence that office-holder by gift or other form of remuneration. }
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s an amamendment to address the broader issue raised in my earlier post..</p>
<p>(Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}</p>
<p>No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution.  The identity and extent of contributions to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.</p>
<p>No person may be elected or appointed to either house of Congress more than two times.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
{The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual  contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.</p>
<p>The term-limits will serve to diminish the motive of any individual or group to who may wish to influence that office-holder by gift or other form of remuneration. }</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom_Beebe</title>
		<link>http://paidcontent.org/2011/01/20/419-att-case-shows-supreme-court-isnt-big-on-privacy-rights-for-companies/#comment-81918</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom_Beebe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paidcontent.wp.gostage.it/2011/01/20/419-att-case-shows-supreme-court-isnt-big-on-privacy-rights-for-companies/#comment-81918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Its time to settle just what determines the rights of ALL groups, not jus corporations. The Citizens Uited case opened the issue and shows how according those rights to a group can undermine democracy. But will those who assail grasnting individual rights to corporations also back limiting the rights of, say, a union, or the Sierra Club, or a PAC, or even SPEBSQSA?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its time to settle just what determines the rights of ALL groups, not jus corporations. The Citizens Uited case opened the issue and shows how according those rights to a group can undermine democracy. But will those who assail grasnting individual rights to corporations also back limiting the rights of, say, a union, or the Sierra Club, or a PAC, or even SPEBSQSA?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
