Worse yet, in many states, corporations can give directly to candidates. The influence of money is driving out the influence of voters . . . . I view the Maine initiative as more indicative of its sponsors' laudable coalition-building skills than the underlying popularity of the idea. Donnelly, Fine, and Miller cite public opinion polls to suggest that voters support public financing. Perhaps another interpretation of available polling might be that voters seem increasingly willing to accept public financing if it is linked to getting big money out of politics, and if little mention is made of any cost to taxpayers.
Some experts regard even that statement as generous.
It deserves noting, however, that it was actually drafted primarily to try and hold down spending by inducing candidates to accept voluntary spending limits with offers of big money incentives. 208's Flaws, Loopholes, Drafting Errors, and Omissions , October 17, 1996. Congress is considered unlikely to pass such an amendment until there is serious momentum towards a Constitutional Convention, the alternative route to amending the Constitution which has historically been necessary to prompt Congressional action on amendments. 12 Judicial obtuseness on this point should be considered in light of the fact that judges are, after all, creatures of the system, appointed by politicians who are winners under the current campaign financing rules. Copyright Boston Review , 1993-2000.