"True, you'd need some real public funding to prevent a small party from being bought off by a lobby or some wealthy sugar daddy like a Soros or Scaife. Some people on this board would scream murder at such a suggestion, though."
A system that would allow incumbents an even greater advantage by funneling public funds into their war chests (and eventually into their own personal pockets)? My tax dollars going to fund a small political party that supports abortion on demand? Why, who could possibly oppose such a plan...
"A system that would allow incumbents an even greater advantage by funneling public funds into their war chests (and eventually into their own personal pockets)? My tax dollars going to fund a small political party that supports abortion on demand? Why, who could possibly oppose such a plan..."
OK, I hear you. Although I have no problem with tax money going to a candiadate's war chest (even if I dont' agree with said candiate) if that is the ONLY way of keeping things clean (provided the $$$ goes only to a well-defined war chest and not a personal slush fund). The only other option would be totally "neuter" lobbies by preventing ANY money tracable to a lobby to go to ANY candidate (i.e the ONLY way a candiate could raise money--if no public funding--would be by strictly limited private contributions). At least that solution would ensure that a politician "danced with the one who brung him." I don't understand the general snideness of your responses either. I'm just trying to suggest improvements in the system--and Lord knows there is plenty of room for them!