tions between parts of the media and government or politicalrnparties, most obviously in France and Italy. Unfortunately,rntechnological developments and the efforts to create multimediarnempires only encourage regulatory supervision and governmentrninterference.rnThe media arc undergoing centralization, not least becausernit is financially easier to make money by arranging mergers andrncreating quasi-monopolies, rather than by creating and investingrnin new concerns. Yet, the relentless pace of new technolog’rnand the extent to which so much of it is amenable to individualrnuse threatens to subvert any corporate structures basedrnon current technology, while the porosity of internationalrnfrontiers to foreign transmission also weakens both monopolyrncontrol and regulatory regimes, as can be seen clearly in Europernand possibly will be increasingly seen in North and LatinrnAmerica.rnFor conservatives the situation is a challenging one, but anyrnuniform response is unlikely because of the ambiguous and differingrnapproaches to issues of regulation and to the ideologyrnand practice of unrestrained capitalism. Furthermore, the regulatoryrncontext not only differs but affects conservatives differentlyrnbecause of the histories of their respective countries.rnAmerican conservatives have had less experience of powerfulrnstate control than their counterparts in Europe, and the threatrnof socialism is less of an issue in America. Equally, many Americanrnand British conservatives find it hard to understand the degreernto which in much of Continental Europe conservativesrnstruggle to control, not to dismantle, state concerns and regulatoryrninstitutions, hi France, Italy, and Germany, state control isrnnot identified with socialism.rnWhatever our doubts and concerns, the modern situation inrnAmerica and Britain is certainly better than one in which thernstate simply controls the media in the name of the people. Yet,rnthere arc also many reasons to avoid complacency. Much of thernrubbish circulated in various branches of the media demonstratesrnboth a lack of standards and an obsession with politicalrncorrectness.rnTHE WISDOM OF THE PLANNED GIFTrn..i^B^/’^S.ii^mrnIP^j^gg^S^rnThere are many ways to give to educational and charitable organizations such as ThernRockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Most people make direct gifts,rnwhich result in a “charitable deduction” from their taxable incomes.rnAnother option is to establish a Charitable Remainder Trust. Assume, for example, that a person boughtrnstock years ago at a cost of $20,000 that is now worth $50,000 and pays 3 percent in dividends. One way tornlock in the current value, avoid capital gains tax, and derive more income would be to create a CharitablernRemainder Unitrust. Pay-out percentages could be set at from 5 percent to 8 percent, and the funds placed inrnsecure income-producing investments. If the trust earns more than the agreed pay-out, the additional money isrnadded to the trust so that its size increases. Upon the death of the donor or his beneficiary, the trust wouldrnbecome the property of the Institute or other charities of the donor’s choice. Estate taxes are eliminated andrnthere is a sizable charitable deduction in the year the trust is established. The amount of the charitablerndeduction depends on the age of the donor and the income retained.rnLegacy Program, The Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103rnI ] Please send me general information on “Planned Giving” options.rnI I Please send me information on the Institute’s Charitable Remainder Trust Fund.rnNAME_rnCITY STATE_rnADDRESS.rn_ ZIP PHONE.rnIf you have a specific asset, such as stocks, that you are considering for a contribution, and if you would like the Institute to evaluate the financial taxrnimplications for your gift, please include the following information:rnSS#_ _ SS # (SPOUSELrnCOST OF ASSET_ ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE_rnFEBRUARY 1996/29rnrnrn