There's just too much money in elections. But I don't support public financing. Government should fork out money to other vital areas such as healthcare instead of silly political campaigns.

McCain's campaign financing reform has been a disaster...

I have heard in the past that it would be less expensive.

Discussing the cost and comparing to where we are now and where this is going would make more sense to me than a generic and vague question.

it reflects what I call the deep "knowing" cynacism that the American people have about politics. If you want to under the Congressional numbers, these numbers of public finance, and just about any other item such as campaign strategies, it all stems from that. No on trust peo to do the right thing.

Voters seem to think that this owuld constitute a major new public expense and an increase in their taxes.  We need to sell it to them by showing how small a percent of their taxes would go to this about how much more they would save by not having representatives beholden to corporate interests.

I think that's actually a pretty bad question. Putting "paid for by the federal government" is a pretty good way to get people to say they don't like something.

There is a lot of ignorance on this issue even by those that you would think might know better.  Having said that I will take the coward's route and suggest that more information can be found at http://www.newrules.org/gov/reform.html

about what public financing is, echoing the other comments above. People assume it means more taxes. Surprised to see public financing receive the same lack of support as taking money from PACS.

Since every taxpayer in America sees the checkbox every year (most don't check it), and it clearly states that it does not increase your taxes, either

1.  People already know about public financing.

or

2.  People will always be ignorant.

In any case, I don't see any reason to like the current system.  People seem to forget, but I remember many lierbaks telling me they would vote for Nader in 2000 because they wanted to get the Green Party to the threshold for public financing.  I also remember Gore being screwed as he had to hoard the very limited amount of money (which is totally inadequate to run a nationwide campaign).  So the system hurt us twice... and who can say the political system does not seem corrupt?

What we currently have is a public subsidy for a handful of the most powerful candidates.  We do not have, what most reasonable people would call federally funded campaigns.  

A decent system of federally funded campaign will:
Reduce the influence of money (thus increasing the power of the vote)
Expand the range of candidates
Increase the quality of information available on candidates.

It may also provide a better opportunity for challenging the hegemony of the Democratic and Republican Parties.  This is why something that makes so much sense to most Americans is not being seriously pushed by either party.  It is time that Democrats start advocating democracy, which means pushing for real campaign finance reform.

This one is easy to understand -- probably a majority of people think of campaign spending as egotistical waste. Why in hell should they have to pay for it?

What we need to sell is the democratic process itself, and that will be hard without some very far reaching reforms. Especially overturning the Buckley decision -- rich guys don't have a free speech right to buy an election.

People do seem to like thorough-going public financing in Maine and Arizona. The partial reforms just make it worse though.

I would ban PACs and all campaign contributions from organizations--unions, corporations, non-profits.  Only individual people should be able to give to political campaigns.

I would limit donations from each person to each candidate to $100 a year.

I would enforce the Communications Act of 1934 (we, the public, own the airwaves, and license broadcasters to use them in the PUBLIC interest) and require free radio and TV airtime for political candidates.  Every candidate meeting the threshold of support should be able to speak to us for 30 minutes if they want like Ross Perot did successfully in 1992.  It would be far more substantive and less dominated by horserace reporting by the media.  Thirty second ads and 10 second sound bites would be less common and less important.

About that threshold of support: In order to qualify for public financing and free airtime (and maybe to get on the ballot), candidates would have to demonstrate that they have at least a nominal base of support (the way parliamentary procedure requires motions to be seconded).  They would do this by collecting $5 donations from a percentage of people (1%?  5%?) in the jurisdiction they're running in.  Once they did that, they would get a lump sum of clean (public) money to use on their campaign.  The only money candidates would be allowed to spend on campaigns would be the public lump sum and donations from individuals complying with the $100/year limit.  The amount of the lump sum would be an inflation-indexed amount per resident or registered voter in their jurisdiction.  But in 2007, it would be less than $1 per person/voter.  There is no reason for a Senate campaign in Ohio to cost $11M, or for a House campaign to cost $1 million.

Finally, unlike the awful restriction we live with under Buckley v. Valeo, this clean system would be mandatory, not optional.

Effects of this system:

*Wealthy people are no longer more attractive political candidates.  Non-wealthy Americans have just as much ability to run for public office as the Maria Cantwells and Jon Corzines.

*Politicians spend very little time raising money.  They owe far less to PACs, lobbyists, or any organization.  Their debt is solely to the people they represent.  Access and influence shift accordingly.  Lobbyists can meet with politicians, but they can't remind them of the $10,000 campaign contribution they made.  Lobbyists don't get to write legislation (Medicare Rx benefit, pollution regulations, many more); the people we elect do.

*The amount of money spent on political campaigns is slashed to a fraction of what it is now, as we stare a $1 billion presidential election in the face.

*Better candidates are enticed to run for office, since they don't have to be wealthy or spend much time fundraising or being corrupted to do so.

*Cynicism decreases--and turnout and other participation should increase--as the people know politicians can't be bought and paid for by shady contributors.

*In addition to reducing the cost of campaigns, free airtime raises the level of political discourse by facilitating its being much more substantive.  If our media act responsibly (a big IF), our news coverage of campaigns also becomes more substantive and relevant and less superficial and vaccuous (Clinton's cleavage, Edwards' haircut, Obama's swimsuit).

*Independent and minor party candidates can compete on an equal footing with Democrats and Republicans.  They can have the same amounts of money to spend, and get on the ballot just as easily as Ds and Rs.  It's not proportional representation, instant runoff voting, or single transferable vote.  It doesn't change first past the post.  But it's a major, fair improvement.

Sounds like a helluva great system to me.  ;)

I think that so long as we keep corporate money out of the elections than we are just fine.  Obama's campaign raising tons of money from small donor's is what I would consider the perfect blend of libertarianism and grass roots democracy.  We have to limit "soft money" and campaign contributions and gifts.