Public Campaign Financing

[Martin Hash]

I know the argument used to promote public financing of political campaigns - how "money” is used to drown out competing voices, etc., etc., etc. What I want to know is how "public financing" is also going to deliver on the other side of the scale? Is it somehow going to give people who have spent their lives achieving financial success "public credibility" to match the folks who worked at the Food Bank during those same productive years? Why should you be shoring up the financial weaknesses of the one side without contributing to the populist attractiveness of the other?

And there are the practical considerations...
• Are not people who are successful in life and business also the kind of people you want in public leadership?
• Are people REALLY equal when they come to the political table? Who makes that decision?
• Don't Ds get just as much money (in an order of magnitude) as Rs?
• Are The People really going to be willing to foot the bill for those megabucks campaigns?!

Speaking as an attorney, the "Freedom of Speech" complaint against campaign spending limits is totally legitimate. Are all "special interests" harmful? Unions? Environmentalists? Productive Rights? Other activists? Is "campaign contributions" the only bogeyman? Politicians at every level are "in the pocket" of somebody, and most are not getting paid to be so.

Finally, the ideal that all the candidates should start on a level playing field has the debate fallacy that it only addresses money. What about the "advantages" of church affiliation, appearance, speaking skill, populist pandering, age, luck, party anointing, etc.? These things are all just as powerful, if not MORE powerful, than money. In fact, money might be the only way to break through some of those.