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

My opponent, like most advocates of campaign-finance reform, is undoubtedly well intentioned. But, like others, he fails to see the folly in socialized election funding. I Googled the "Fair Election Act" and couldn't find much about it. But I do know that, not long ago, there was a bipartisan public financing bill that would have entirely enshrined the two-party system and forever shut out all third-party opposition in this country. Institutionalized factionalism is about as antithetical to the ideals of the American founding fathers as anything imaginable, and in complete disharmony with the spirit of liberty and democratic republicanism. Secondly, money only has an "influence" in politics because money can BUY influence. This is because the government does way too much. The federal government has grossly expanded beyond its constitutional bounds, and thus, secretly in Washington, the looters can divide the loot among their favorites without much scrutiny from the people. You are attacking a symptom instead of the problem itself -- the government has too much power; too much discretion to dole out favors. If the government behaved constitutionally, there would be no need for campaign-finance laws at all, because there would be no favoritism to show. Thirdly, the bribery would continue even under a regime of publicly financed elections. True bribery is about getting personal money, not campaign cash. If politicians didn't have to hustle for campaign cash, they would spend more time expanding the government and destroying liberty, and more time collecting literal bribes for doing so. Fourthly, I find it hilarious that the "non-special interests" you cite -- teachers, police, firefighters, nurses -- are actually some of the biggest special interests in America! They are all government employees who vote for more and more government and less liberty. They don't need to run for office -- the politicians already serve them. (Nurses are not directly government employees, but the entire medical-industrial complex is largely funded by the government). You mistake constitutional republicanism -- the form of government we are supposed to have -- for democratic socialism, which is the kind of government we mostly do have and you want more of. You see private financing of elections as the last bulwark against pure "democracy" (i.e. socialism) and perhaps you are right. But that's the best argument for keeping private financing! You say that candidates who don't represent special interests can't raise money. Ron Paul has proven that false. Now, Ron Paul is not getting the votes -- that's because your beloved democracy is not giving them to him. The people want the government they have, and that's very unfortunate, but true. Ron Paul has raised more money than any other Republican (as of late) by appealing to blue-collar workers who give him $100 contributions. He gets NO MONEY from the investment banks who are the primary financiers of all other major candidates (on the left and the right -- and whom you do not mention, curiously). Campaign-finance restrictions are really restrictions on free speech. Ask Doug Stanhope. Ask Unity 08. Unity 08 brings up another point, too -- finance restrictions kill competition. Just like every other regulation in the U.S., campaign-finance laws are designed to enshrine the establishment. That's why even the Socialist Party USA is against McCain-Fiengold! But of course, you are less concerned with freedom of speech or political liberty than with allowing the "mainstream" parties able to feed at the welfare troff. Why not just go to a one-party state like Cuba, China, or North Korea? We pretty much have that now with the two major parties' consensus on the most important issues (monetary and foreign policy), and your proposed "solution" would make that irrevocably the case.