Sufficient voluntary public financing should be available for all elections. Fair Election Now Act

Here is a link for some more information, and I'm sure you can find more by googling Fair Elections Now Act rather than Fair Elections Act. . http://www.publicampaign.org... I don't wish to argue about the constitutionality of the current system as that is another debate entirely and seems much more likely to devolve into personal opinions. But, I will point out that it's ridiculous to assume that a smaller government from the "good old years" will be less free of graft- from the beginning, the government provided a source of jobs and influence for people. Tariffs, also, would be in the hands of special interests just as much then as now and those are explicitly allowed in the Constitution. Factionalism. The one provision in the current bill that concerns this is that third party candidates will have to show more public support in the form of collecting more signatures and five-dollar contributions than members of the two-party system in order to qualify for the system. After that, I believe they are treated the same. I have mixed feelings on this- on the one hand, I agree that all people should be able to compete openly, on the other hand I don't like the idea of hate groups, etc, being able to spew their rhetoric on public funding. Regardless, I think that the overall benefits outweigh the relatively small constraints placed on third party candidates, especially considering they can still run without public financing. Bribery- personal bribery is ILLEGAL. It is a lot easier for the FBI, police, etc to track and catch than is campaign bribery. "Non-special interests. " I was not denying that they they have their own interests- everyone is self-interested to some extent. But the biggest special interests? certainly not. Just look at spending expenditures in campaigns, etc- industries make up the biggest donors, not unions representing these people. Nevertheless, this argument is irrelevant to my point- I trust these people in government, who have dedicated themselves to public service at generally low paying and hard-working jobs far more than I trust people who have spent their lives in the oil industry, or lawyers working to protect corporations, etc. You can substitute construction workers in here if you want to, but the point remains- public financing would open up the potential to run for office to a far broader spectrum of people. I don't understand how you see private financing as protecting republicanism against socialism. A system of public financing means that candidates have to spend more time talking to individual voters rather than on phones dialing for dollars. That does not necessarily support socialism, it merely makes politicians more responsive to what the people want rather than the people who give them money- which yes, I do define as more democratic. Ron Paul- yes, in recent times the internet has begun to make headway against this issue, not only with Ron Paul but with other campaigns throughout the US as well. But Ron Paul is an aberration and hardly represents the vast majority of Congressional seats which do not have candidates able to raise competitive money against big industrial candidates. You misunderstand the nature of this proposal. I clearly stated this was voluntary- there are NO restrictions included in it unless they choose to take public financing. Candidates who don't can still raise all the money they want. In fact, this ENCOURAGES freedom of speech by giving voice to a broader range of candidates who otherwise never would be heard from, both within and without the party. In fact, I would argue that monetary issues would be much more open to debate with people able to get into politics without depending on the big corporations, etc, who like the monetary system the way it is. It increases the variety of people represented- including women and minorities, it reduces incumbency victory rates, which are hideously high throughout the country, and increases voter faith in government and participation. (. http://democracymatters.org...)