Re: Draft of fundraising letter

> In a widely quoted speech last month that I gave on the Capitol steps
> in
> Salt Lake City Utah, I said,

It reads better to me to move some words:

> In a widely quoted speech that I gave last month on the Capitol steps
> in
> Salt Lake City Utah, I said,

---
> Do you agree with that?  Do you also think that we're spending too 
> much on
> voting machines made by Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and the rest?
I think you need an adjective to help negatively characterize the 
problem with the proprietary vendors.
Maybe "...made by self-interested private companies such as Diebold,..."
Obviously, we don't want to commit libel.  But not everyone already 
knows what's wrong with these vendors.
---
> What if an organization could develop a machine unlike these expensive,
> proprietary, paperless voting machines-one that was inexpensive,
> non-proprietary open source, and that produced a printed summary 
> ballot that
> the voter could verify before casting?
Here "open source" is not self-evident in meaning to all readers.  
Maybe:
> ...a machine unlike these expensive,
> proprietary, paperless voting machines--one that was inexpensive,
> non-proprietary, had source code examinable by all voters, and that
> produced a printed summary ballot that the voter could verify before
> casting?
---
> designed as a 501©(6)
I think your MS software is overzealous in corrections.  Yet another 
reason to ditch MS: you can write 501(c)(6) as intended.
Of course, the organization is also "designated" not "designed"... 
well, it -was- "designed" by us, but that's not what you mean.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================