Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 July 8

=July 8=

Internet law
Is there any definition of Internet Law? Perhaps any scholar, legal act or court formulated such definition? Thanks in advance 84.40.169.244 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "law" in the legal sense? Then "Internet law" would be the body of laws (and regulations having the force of law) that are specifically related to the Internet and its use, as well as the study of such laws and law cases involving Internet issues. The extent is jurisdiction-dependent, and what laws and regulations exactly are considered to pertain to specifically the Internet is necessarily somewhat fuzzy (just as it is, for example, for contract law). You can generically define "XX law" this way, where XX is some noun phrase for something subject to legal regulation. --Lambiam Talk  11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the abreviation clav.
In the Goldberg variations, each variation has the notation 1 or 2 clav. What is the meaning and purpose for this notation.

Ike royer Ikerr 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)iker —


 * The Goldberg Variations was written for a two-manual harpsichord (see manual (music) for an explanation; see also our article on the Goldberg Variations). The 2 clav. sections were meant to be played on two manuals -- i.e. this allowed both hands to be playing in the same register, something very hard to do on, say, a piano.  The 1 clav. and 2 clav. notations indicate which variations are to be played on one and two manuals, respectively.  Hope this helps!  Antandrus  (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Clav." is short for "clavier", meaning a manual or keyboard. Gdr 11:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Socialism
Hi Wikipedia community!!

I'm reading a great book:

Mises, Ludwig von, "Socialism, an economic and sociological analysis".

This book refutes socialism. Well, I would also like to read a book that defends socialism, hopefully as rigorously as Mises attacks it.

Can anybody recommend me a book? Hopefully with a modern perspective; most socialist writers I know are from almost a century ago.

Thanks!


 * I cannot offhand think of any recent polemics in favour of socialism.  For a sympathetic outline, which neverthless strives to be detached and scholarly, you might consider Socialism: a Very Short Introduction by Michael Newman.  The author believes that socialism is as relevant as it ever was, though it needs to learn from the lessons of the past.  Most of the classic defences are probably older than you would wish.  Clio the Muse 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe one who writes about democratic socialism? I'm not very familiar with the subject, but I imagine there must be some modern literature on socialism. What about socialist economics? It would be a more restricted subject but I would enjoy it anyway. I am more than satisfied with Mises on the liberal side, but I honestly don't think a "very short introduction" would make much of an impression after an "economic and sociological analysis". If nothing else, maybe you know of some less recent socialist writers? Thanks for the time, Clio! --209.9.194.104 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy to help you 209.9, it's just that I am not sure how deep you really want to go. Also, on the assumption that you are coming to the subject more or less with no prejudices or preconceptions, I am reluctant to suggest anything that could, conceivably, confirm an attitude of potential hostility!  However, at your own risk, and without any specific recommendation on my part, you might be bold enough to tackle Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: towards a Radical Democratic Politics by Ernesto Laclau and Chantel Mouffe, Towards a New Socialism by Anatole Anton and Richard Schmitt, and The Case for Socialism by Alan Maass.  Please let me know if you wish travel further into the country of Marxism and I will make some additional suggestions.  Clio the Muse 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A few links I found that might be helpful to you: YSA reading list, Socialist Party of Michigan Reading List (looks very comprehensive to me), Classical Marxist Reading List (supposedly. . .) Our Socialism article also has a limited “References and further reading” section. Hope some of that helps! S.dedalus 05:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends what you define as socialism. Could be anything from a positive biography of FDR and the New Deal to Marx's Capital itself. Gzuckier 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the world oldest's dead religion?
What is the world oldest dead religion which we have accurate record of its beliefs. 211.28.121.144 07:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not an answer, but I'd like to point out several problems with the question. The first is to determine whether a set of beliefs is a religion. Is Greek mythology a religion? Another issue is to determine when a religion's "beliefs" have been recorded accurately. Many religions are not doctrinal, and are more about practicing sacred rituals based on shared cultural assumptions then about dogmas. If someone believes there are evil spirits at road intersections, it is not because their religion tells them to believe that, but because everyone knows this to be so. A related problem is to determine when two religions are the same. Did the inhabitant of old Athens have the same religion as those of Sparta? Definitely, the myths changed from place to place. Finally, when is a religion dead? Can we be certain Manichaeism is truly extinct, or might remnants linger on in China? Is Arianism dead, or is the Arian Catholicism a present-day continuation? --Lambiam Talk  10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Proto-Indo-European religion? I'm not sure that our record may be termed accurate or that it may be termed dead. Either epithet is equivocal. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would presume that the Assyrian religion is the closest thing we have to a described religion that is now dead. The problem is that we don't really have a full picture of the doctrine/theology, but we have a pretty good picture of their pantheon and practices.  Geogre 13:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * William Hamblin's book, Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC, contains an extensive amoun of information on religion in the Middle East long before the Greeks, mostly as it relates to war. So I would say that it's likely that the earliest religion we have decent records over would either be something in the Middle East during the 3rd millenium BC, or possibly ancient Egyptian.  The Jade Knight 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate record of its beliefs is the tricky part. Not quite killed off yet but Id say The Dreaming may be one of our very oldest belief systems since Indigenous Australians may be the oldest continuous culture on Earth. Mhicaoidh 06:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's if you regard these people as forming a single culture, rather than about 650 distinct cultures with, generally, mutually unintelligible languages, and vastly different cultural practices and belief systems. -- JackofOz 13:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite correct Jack, but age was the key point I was getting at. Mhicaoidh 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But you're assuming their belief system hasn't changed significantly in over 3000 years (without the help of writing to record any of it)… The Jade Knight 03:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite an assumption, more a reflection of current scholarship based on archaeological and historical studies primarily at the University of Queensland and Australia National University.Many ancient societies can and have maintained a culture for a considerable period of time if there has been no major shift in the balance of climate, land, food harvesting, technology, cultural interaction etc Mhicaoidh 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Linguistic shifts alone would belie any claim that oral information can be transmitted over millenia without changing—without any sort of writing system, it's implausible that their religious beliefs today should be particularly close to what they were 5000 years ago. The Jade Knight 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are ascribing claims to me that I have not made, in particular your escalating millenia!. My point was to suggest that for a considerable period of time indigenous Australians existed without the natural and cultural upheavals that other societies have experienced particularly in the northern hemisphere, therefore their belief systems are likely to be relatively consistent and intact. But I must take issue with your comments on oral cultures and their assumed inability to hold and pass on information. I know you have expertise in linguistics but I based my assertion on scholarship in my field which is the study of indigenous cultures in the Pacific. People here developed many mechanisms, such as schools, the tohunga system, the cellular structures of family/tribal systems, whakapapa etc to secure information in an oral culture and you would find it very interesting. I invite you to a conference here! For example, even after several hundred years it has been possible to identify locations in the islands from where Maori departed, based on verbal descriptions passed on. Maori culture is dedicated to remembering in a way that the western isnt. Many in the west cant name their great grandparents, whereas in Maori society, recitation of your genealogy is absolutely fundamental to your identity. This is reflected in their notion of time, which is the reverse of that in the west: the Maori word for the past is mua, meaning in front of, the word for the future, muri, means behind. An interesting parallel to our emerging respect for the abilities of Pacific societies is voyaging. For many years it was assumed that Pacific peoples lacked the large ships and technology necessary for oceanic travel and that all settlement was accidental.Now we know that their "primative canoes' are sophisticated vessels and they had fine tuned navigational techniques that had them arriving at their destinations in better shape than many scurvy European seamen.  Mhicaoidh 00:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In order for it to be older than Mesopotamean religions, it'd have to be several millenia old. I have a degree in History, and took a minor in Linguistics (while we're talking about credentials).  Considering how many other oral traditions have been slaughtered in ancient history, and how many other languages have branched out, etc., I find it hard to believe tha the Australians experienced little change.  It's not that hard to keep a location in rememberance when the location itself has changed very little over centuries.  Gods, legends, and rituals are another matter entirely.  Consider the Arthurian cycle, as one example, or the difficulty in determining which version of various Celtic rituals or deities were "the authentic original"—a culture can remain stable and consistent and yet folklore will transform rapidly within that culture.  Folklore (including folk religion) doesn't sit still, but changes with the experience of every individual that passes it on (and a great many studies have been done on this).  The Jade Knight 04:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we can agree to disagree anyway. There are some things that are unique to the far Pacific and we have to be careful not to let our Western preconceptions get in the way of accepting their reality, for example this impossible beast ! By the way I know next to nothing about the land between two rivers and wasn't advocating that indigenous Australian beliefs had been around longer than theirs, I was just putting them up for candidacy. Mhicaoidh 07:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mesopotamian mythology is about as far back as we go with any level of accuracy, but even that is a catch-all term for several different belief systems. The Sumerians left us the Epic of Gilgamesh which, while not a religious text, does shed light on the religious beliefs of the times.  152.16.59.190 05:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some Sumerian religious literature survives. Here's a link to some hymns and cult songs at ETCSL. --Nicknack009 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion of New Testament scholars
Howdy. Does anyone know what religion most academic New Testament scholars belong to? Are they mostly Christians or non-Christians? I suppose that can get blurry with competing definitions, so let's say a Christian is someone who says that they are a Christian. Thanks. Schmitty120 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Academic freedom means that most scholars neither would nor should answer a questionnaire along those lines. Determining "most" would be extremely difficult, additionally.  Supposing that every scholar were willing to answer, who is determining which are the scholars?  We would need a good method, such as "all persons publishing in peer reviewed journals on New Testament theology, history, and Biblical text within the last ten years" to even come up with the set of persons to question.  As an academic discipline, the personal belief should not matter, unless we buy into the false assumption that belief in the trinity and resurrection is somehow incompatible with academic rigor.  Geogre 13:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would assume that most religious scholars are inspired by religion, and I believe those who want to take up positions as a priest are encouraged to study the religion. While they may not be academic scholars there must be many 'amateur' scholars of religion who's full time job is preaching it. Some, such as Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams are both academic and clerical (his doctorate is in theology). Cyta 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm of a similar opinion to Cyta—my hunch (just a hunch) is that most would be Christian, and would be studying the New Testament because of their interest in Christianity. The Jade Knight 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion of whether they would or would not be, but this is a major shibboleth just now among some fundamentalists, who are ready to discount centuries of scholarship because they have heard that the scholars "aren't Christian." All such value judgments are slippery at best.  There was/is/shall be a major brouhaha at one of my universities when a fundamentalist youngster went to the seminary and found out that, although all of the people called themselves Christians, several did not believe in God and only one believed in the virgin birth.  Big ink tossed about, outrage all around, etc.  Immediately, we're into "real Christian" vs. "Christian" vs. whatever, and we are immediately again, and most critically, into "what does it matter?"  If the scholarship is sound, the scholarship is sound.  In many cases, I don't think it is altogether sound, as the ground work is fine but the interpretation reflects the scholar's prejudices, but that is apparent no matter what the person says he or she is.  Again and again, I come back to why it matters to me as a reader of the scholarship whether the scholar is a believer or not.  I do not want a believer to bias his scholarship to confirm his beliefs any more than I do a non-believer to bias his or her scholarship.  Geogre 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Geogre is of course right that someone's belief shouldn't matter, scholarship should be addressed on it's own merits, but it doesn't really answer the question. However I don't mind going off topic! Dismissing someone's work based on their beliefs would be wrong, but knowing what those beliefs are would be useful when attempting to analyse their work. I always take a cynical attitude when reading things, and knowing where someone is coming from can help you understand, as Geogre said, there is interpretation in biblical scholarship, it is not a hard science of mathematics and experiment in which there are right and wrong answers. As a sceptical strong atheist, I see many interpret the Bible to reflect their own beliefs, bits they disagree with are metaphors, or don't count anymore. But I am sure there are also those who think long and hard to let the bible guide them rather than vice versa. Anyway, I stand by my original claim that priests studying for professional purposes will mean most studiers of the bible will be Christian. Cyta 07:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks everyone. I was asking cause I had heard that New Testament scholars were "predominately non-Christian." See second paragraph under heading "Resurrection." And I was wondering if that was true. Schmitty120 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

$12.99
what ever goods I buy costs only in .99 and not in dollars without decimels. why is that? Is there any tax incentive? what exactly is the tax incentive?


 * There is an article that discusses this, Psychological pricing. As the title indicates, the reason for these prices is psychological - we are more likely to buy something with a lower dollar value, even if the cent value is very high.  There are some other theories of origin, also, if you care to read the article.  --Joelmills 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or in simple terms, vendors hope people are stupid. That article, by the way, all joking aside, needs help. dr.ef.tymac 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have always found this practice intensely irritating. Surely no one is fooled by it! Pricing things at a whole number of dollars would be much better. Even better would be to price things such that once the local sales tax is added, it then comes out to be a whole number. For example if an item were priced at say $4.65 where I live and local sales tax is 7.5%, tax would be $.35. When this was added to the $4.65, the total would be $5 even. This would make it very easy to figure out in your head what your actual out-of-pocket costs would be. This is probably much too logical, however.--Eriastrum 15:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * re:Sales tax - in the UK the price displayed in retail outlets will include any taxes or excise duties payable, so the price you see is the price you pay. It is confusing (to say the least) when visiting the USA to discover that one is being asked to pay somewhat more than the price on the label. DuncanHill 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The best solution is for the label to have both prices, with and without taxes. A.Z. 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I recall, though I'm not positive, that in Australia things were priced at .99 even though they don't have a cent piece, so the price was more or less rounded up anyway (to the nearest 5 cent piece).   So if you bought one thing at 1.99 you payed 2.00 anyway (if you bought five things, then you would save the 5 cents!) --Cody.Pope 16:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the odd penny/cent/whatever price requires the shop assistant to give change, thus ensuring that the sale will be rung up on the cash register, rather than risk that the shop assistant will just pocket the banknote if the cost of the sale = face value of note. -- Arwel (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cody is correct about the pricing in Australia - that is common practice. You usually buy more than 1 item when you shop, so the idea is it all averages out anyway. On a side note: I once saw an item at my local supermarket which was boldly marked "Special: $4.99" and in fine print, "Regular price $5.00". 203.221.126.32 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The rounding only applies to cash purchases, because we no longer use 1 or 2-cent coins. If I buy a basket of goods that total $37.83, and I pay by credit card or EFTPOS, I pay exactly $37.83.  --  JackofOz 03:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Eriastrum: Actually, sad as it is to say, people are very much fooled by this, without being aware of it. There is considerable market research to prove this (some of which is discussed in the Psychological pricing article). --169.230.94.28 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The same in New Zealand except we now only have 10, 20 and 50 cents and got rid of the 5 cents too. Most stores, especially the big ones round 5 cents and below down and 6 cents and above up. Ironically when the removal of the 5 cent coin was announced there were a lot of people complaining about how retailers were going to raise prices because of it. Which of course was incredibly silly since most prices were still .99 despite us not having the 1 and 2 cent coins for the past 10 years or whatever. There were a few prices at .95 but these of course have not changed and even if they have (never noticed it), they likely would have go down to .90 not up to .00 Nil Einne 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the common rounding used when we had 5 cents in New Zealand was usually called Swiss rounding. The price was not always rounded up to the nearest 5 cents. Instead, 1 or 2 cents would be rounded down, 3 or 4 would be rounded up. I.E. 0,1,2 is 0 cents (down); 3,4,5,6,7 is 5 cents; 8,9,0 is 0 cents (up). I presume it's the same in Australia too Nil Einne 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that's how it works here.  But only for cash purchases.  --  JackofOz 02:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually the "trick" does work psychologically. Boiling it down to its simplest terms, it works like this.  Say, the price is advertised at $19.99.  Now, of course, logical thinking helps us realize that that price is merely one penny less than a $20 bill.  However, when you read the price, you start at the left (the "1" numeral), and proceed to the right.  So, basically, you instantly see the "1" and your mindset (brain process) is that the item will cost you in the "tens" of dollars, not the "twenties."  It all happens in an instant, of course.  Then, by the time you have read across the rest of the digits to the right, your brain has already processed that the item is in the 10's range, and not so "expensive" as the 20's range.  (JosephASpadaro 01:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC))


 * That's right. First impressions really do count. --  JackofOz 03:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On a slightly different note, am I the only one who finds it incredibly annoying when you ask someone how much an item is and they tell you $2 when the price is $2.99 or when you remember the price wrong and think it is $2 when it is actually $2.99? Most of the time of course people will simply say an item is $3 if it is $2.99 Nil Einne 23:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a friend who's an accountant, who at one time was employed by a chain of cinemas to cut employee petty fraud that was costing them a fortune. One of the chief techniques employed was to set prices for confectionery items, that ended in varying odd amounts of pence. This made it impossible for all but the very best fraudsters to avoid using the till (a classic fraud) as they needed to tot up the amounts (and also find the correct change). From what I understand, she was very successful... but perhaps she's not a WP:RS! --Dweller 13:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese literature questions
Thank you in advance, 瀬人様 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I found in Oku no Hosomichi the haiku '松島や　鶴の身を枯れ　杜鵑'. I found this on the Internet; I read the book in Yaakov Raz's translation, in which he said both that it was Matsuo Basho's and Sora's. Who's is it?
 * :I'll take a stab at this. The complete text of Oku no Hosomichi doesn't have the phrase above, so I don't know what you mean when you say you found it there. The only occurrence of the phrase I could find on the internet was one on a page otherwise entirely in Hebrew here, where it is attributed to Kawai Sora (河合 曾良). (I find it amazing that this is a redlink given how many editors there are on Japanese topics.) This is all quite circumstantial, but I find it hard to believe that any haiku by Basho would be found only once on the web. I would say there is pretty strong evidence that it is Sora's. However, as Sora was Basho's disciple, clearly Basho may have influenced its creation. - Banyan Tree 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm looking for the rules of how to write a Noh play. I found a link to 13 Noh plays (thanks to Wiki-sama), and it showed quite a unique writing style, which I couldn't really figure out. It was said in Wikipedia that Noh plays are supposed to follow the 5-7 syllable structure, but I saw it was broken quite often. Any explanations?
 * :Noh states "texts are poetic, relying heavily on the Japanese seven-five rhythm", which implies that it is not strict. I think it telling that the Japanese Wikipedia description seems to make no mention of syllable pattern. - Banyan Tree 09:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Boy Flood notability
Is the musical act "The Boy Flood" in any way notable? I'm asking because it's exlinked from Area 51 (which is afflicted by an excessive "in popular culture" section) and I fear it may simply by spam. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably know my preference. :-) In seriousness, though, when these things grow too many heads, we should lop them off one at a time until we hear someone speak.  Hit and run page rank boosting is a real nightmare on Wikipedia, and I'm kind of hardcore about advertising anyway.  Let folks justify the addition rather than your having to justify the excision.  How is this pertinent to this?  How are these "popular culture" listings significant popular culture? How do they add to the knowledge of the effect and usefulness of information about Area 51?  Geogre 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

trans formers
What bad words (such a cuse words) does the new movie transformers conyain.


 * "Michael Bay." (Actually, your question would be better answered by one of the sites devoted to such things, like HollywoodJesus. (Yes, folks, it exists.))  Geogre 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They use "but" a lot. I find that very offensive.  They could use "however", but insist on using such anally-suggestive language. -- Kainaw (what?) 20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Internet Movie Database claims that the movie includes "mild swearing, including the s-word several times. The f-word is implied but not used", plus "a couple of sexual jokes including one about masturbation. Some sensuality, and some very suggestive images".  Laïka  21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to : "1 F-word, 2 not fully-enunciated F-word derivatives, 6 sexual references ("I'm still a virgin," "were you masturbating?"), 1 obscene hand gesture, 12 scatological terms, 4 anatomical terms, 9 mild obscenities, name-calling (freak, knucklehead), 21 religious exclamations." Wrad 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the robot urination! Adam Bishop 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus the dog urination! Corvus cornix 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can foreigners give donations to U.S political parties and presidential candidates
Do any countries allow this? I was thinking if it was allowed, foreign anti-Bush protesters should just fund his opponents instead of protesting Willy turner 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * United States law forbids non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. See 1996 United States campaign finance controversy for a case study. Rockpock  e  t  02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The (current) Brazilian Constitution forbids political parties from receiving financial assistance from a foreign entity, according to proposition II of article 17. (I assume that, by "do any countries allow this?", you meant to ask whether any countries allow foreigners to give donations to political parties) A.Z. 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Similarly in Canada, section 331 of the Elections Act reads: "No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act." (Note that "person" in legal lingo includes corporations.)  --Anonymous, July 9, 2007, 03:37 (UTC).


 * This does not forbid foreigners to give donations to Canadian political parties. --Lambiam Talk  07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An enormous loophole in this law is that large corporations, which are supranational in character, and many of which are incorporated in places like the Cayman Islands, are allowed to give freely. --TotoBaggins 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if it were possible for foriegners to give to political candidates, it would be a huge club for Republicans to beat their opponents with, and would be a less than worthless gesture. -144.160.98.31 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * An alternative is to give to a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that supports policies opposed to White House policies such as the Brookings Institution. Groups like this are legally forbidden from endorsing candidates or giving money to campaigns but they can advocate for specific policies. An advantage is that you can be specific about what Bush policy you oppose. Of course Pres. Bush, is a lame-duck president, so it would be hard to hurt him politically at this point. He's Constitutionally prohibited from running for office again and any congressman you help elect wouldn't take office until after Bush is gone in 2009. --D. Monack | talk 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the insane funding levels involved in US presidential bids and the large involvement of corporations, it would be basically worthless for foreign individuals to try and influence the US presential elections via funding. Also, while many people may not like Bush, most are probably not willing to waste that much money to try and fix what is ultimately another countries problem (even if that problem has a great influence on them). Nil Einne 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that a few of the above discussion seems to have gone a bit off track. As I understand it, the question asker is only interested in whether foreign individuals can give funds to the US, including any restrictions by the US and any restrictions by foreign governments on whether their citizens are allowed to donate to US politicians. If the question asker is interested in whether other countries allow foreign donations to their politicians/parties then it's currently allowed in New Zealand, but there have been suggestions to disallow it due to some recent controversies Nil Einne 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Our article on 1996 United States campaign finance controversy refers to "United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties". I think that phrasing is too general.  Federal law regulates donations to candidates for federal office.  State laws vary.  I know that some states allow donations of a kind or in an amount that would be illegal in federal campaigns.  I don't know what the state laws are about foreign donors.  Of course, the hypothetical foreign anti-Bush partisans probably don't care all that much about electing a Democratic governor. JamesMLane t c 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)