Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
I think I laid it out pretty plainly. At least based on what I understand you to mean by 'public' financing of campaigns.
Ordinarily (from a reform perspective) the common proposal comes down to the 'public' (government) funding all eligible candidates and forcing them to forgo any outside contributions. Is that your understanding as well?
There are no existing programs I know anywhere of that do that. (Not getting into whether it would be constitutional to try)
Massively scaling down the government, or at the very least its ability to pick and choose winners and losers in industry. Quit making government influence so lucrative and the money will dry up overnight. It's the only realistic option. Government will not clean up its own corruption.
Where? I posted exactly a response to your assertion that public financed elections would make it "next to impossible for an outsider to break in." The opposite is true, yet you choose to ignore that fact and respond with your bizarre 'apples to horses' comment.
The public financed option doesn't exclude people from contributing to their candidate of choice........even though too many choose party first, regardless the candidate.......it would mean limiting contributions to say, $1000. That's how you take the corporate influence out of the electoral process, amongst other reforms, not by sticking your head in the sand and denying it's the core problem.