Thus, the Court upheld FECA's provision of public funds for presidential campaigns. Providing candidates with public funds is not a perfect solution. It does require taxpayers to contribute money to candidates whom they do not necessarily support. Therefore, not every individual who decides to run for office would receive public funds. Moreover, many Americans disapprove of many government-funded projects, but their disapproval does not excuse them from paying income tax.
Public funding requires a significant amount of government revenue.
Voters may wonder why Congress would choose to pay for unseemly political advertising when it is uncertain whether it will be able to honor its Social Security and Medicare commitments. The integrity of the electoral process, however, is worthy of taxpayer funds. His question may not capture every nuance of the debate over reform, but its success as an applause line during Bradley's speeches suggests that the public may not necessarily consider public funding profligate spending. Furthermore, the recent success of public funding initiatives in Maine, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Vermont demonstrates that voters might actually believe that the health of the political process justifies the expense. As Jim argues, if contributors are characterized as monopolists, in that they enjoy exclusive control of political discourse, then applying an antitrust rationale to campaign finance reform might lead to the conclusion that FECA is constitutional.