My main objection to this proposal is that it basically turns control over our elections to the news media, since most people would base their donation on the candidates that have gotten the most publicity.

Friends-

There is something many of you can do right now. If, like me, you believe there IS a difference between Democrats and Republicans and you believe that difference would be even greater if the Democratic Party were receiving less funding from big money sources, join me in "buying" a democracy bond. This initiative was started by Howard Dean. It is a $20-50 per month subscription to the DNC. There are over 30,000 participants now. If 500,000 people did this we would have, in essence, a publicly financed party.

Just go to the Democratic Party website and sign up. If you want a party that will change energy policy, promote single payer health care and fight militarism, buy it.

Honhog

Aside from being almost as Byzantine as, say, Bush's newest health care proposal, this proposal does not address the cost (to us) of implementing the plan. The FEC would need whole new computer programs -- maybe new computers -- and we all know how effective the Feds are at developing new programs (HOW long has the IRS been at it?).

No -- go to the Canadian model -- 6 week campaigns, government finance and free airtime.

I suggested this in a letter here a while ago, but...

Why not just get rid of campaigning altogether? What purpose does it serve, besides littering our landscape with signs and bumper stickets that offer absolutely no valuable information? Instead, have the government create a few simple, direct forums (a few hours on public television, a government website, and a packet sent to every home) in which the candidates would be called upon to simply state their views. If you wanted to up the ante, you could restrict the candidates from using metaphors or vague slogans. Maybe restrict them to answering specific 'tough' questions that need a specific answer (example: "If I had to raise one of the following taxes, I would raise___" or "I believe in the separation of church and state: __Yes __No"). You could also accompany each candidate's section with a summary of their voting record. Subject everything to extensive factchecking. So on and so forth. None of this is rocket science. This could be delivered to every person in the States for probably even less than $50 per person.

Of course, you couldn't technically prevent candidates from setting up proxy campaigns on the side. But if a comprehensive government-sponsored campaign existed, it would bring home the point that everything outside of it was unqualified and falsified propaganda.

Sound radical? Socialist? 'Big government'? And I suppose you don't think it's absurd that a candidate can say blatant lies about factual matters (I'm not talking about the broad lies like Iraq, I mean blatant, specific lies about the opponent's voting record, etc.) on national television, and neither be penalized nor corrected, leaving voters with the responsibility to check an obscure website to get the actual information.

Drop another tab of acid already, your not tripping high enough.

We should lower the campaign limit to $50. Mr. CEO can give $50, and then throw in the same amount for his wife, his kids, his brother-in-law, say 10 people in all. That's $500. The average voter, someone who's a median income kind of person, can compete with that. What they can't compete with is Mr. CEO giving all his relatives $2000 (or $10,000 or $100,000 or whatever fabulous amount you want to propose) each to send to Candidate X.

There's you $50 dollar fix. It would also limit the campaign season because they wouldn't have so damn much money to campaign for so damn long.

Here is another idea: limit contributions only to those legal entities that are allowed to physically vote for a candidate. Set a contribution limit. Make bundling illegal. Plus do the other things people have suggested: free airtime, limit campaign duration.

I'm a Canadian. We have six week campaigns, and it's great! We've had two federal elections in the last three years and they cost us less than one -- one -- of your large Senatorial races. Once the hooplah dies down, the elected can get back to the job of governing and we can get back to what's important (hockey, of course :-).

Don't you Americans get tired of your two year presidential campaigns? Wouldn't you rather have your politicians governing rather than clogging up your TV, radio, and mailboxes?

The problem in the United States is outdated constitutional limits on the regulation of federal elections. That's why the United States could never have, say, Canadian-style elections, with predetermined campaign seasons, mandatory public finance and so on. Congress can't directly pass laws circumscribing elections, so we're forced to go through all the contortions of limiting campaign contributions.

Here's a much simpler solution to the mess:

"Amendment XXVIII: Regulation of Elections

"Notwithstanding any other provision in this Constitution, Congress shall have the power to regulate by appropriate legislation any election to the Presidency, the Vice Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives."

This is a terrific idea, which is precisely why politicians and the public don't like it. But I think I know a way it can be sold to the masses.

Reimpose the "fairness" doctrine and apply it to advertising. Require as a condition of FCC licensing that all TV stations be forbidden from charging anything for political advertising unless they make it accessible to all candidates. After all, the airwaves belong to the public, and it'll be the public's money that's going into these campaigns.

The way it stands now, people just sit on their dead asses, watch TV, get inundated with ads paid for by fat cats, bitch about how politics is a cesspool, and then stay at home on election day and watch a Steven Seagal movie instead of exercising their right to vote.

If the people are really interested in repairing a broken system, let them work to fix it by subscribing to these measures and getting actively involved in politics by working to get the candidates of their choice elected.

And the first step is to NEVER support anyone who doesn't think this is a good place to start.