Unrelated, but the new Richardson adds are...good

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/pa ge/s/jobinterview

Or is it possible that lobbyists like government-funded campaigns because then they will be able to lobby for campaign funding as well?  If the government becomes the main source of campaign funding, then guess who is going to help politicians get it?  If lobbyists could add campagin funds to their exisitng menu of R&D funding, tax breaks, agriculutural subsidies, etc. that would be a wonderful growth business for them.

Yeah exactly, i thought mydd was going to do a poll?  I was in favor of the NV poll.  If you want it done right, do it yourself.

This is completely unrelated, but H Clinton just leased campaign headquarters in arlington va.  Its a pretty busted old building.  Its near the ballston metro. Used to be the INS building.  They were going to tear it down and build condos before the market tanked.

ddonnelly, what are some of the ideas you have for preventing this kind of tinkering in a system of government funded elections?

This only underscores the fact that CFR exists for ONE purpose: to protect incumbents.

Yesterday I questioned wether or not pols in power can be trusted with lists of who gives to what political campaigns.  I questioned whether they would abuse such lists to suppress unpopular canidates (a la Lyndon Johnson's paranoia of MLK, SNCC, and the 60's Left)
Lo and behold I saw this story linked off reason today, though not about donation lists, it just reinforces my fear that such lists would be abused:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118002.h tml

"I will vote no on this Bill," he said, "and have lots of very chilling stories to relate to the other committee members so it goes my way." Fair enough. But then Burridge closed his message with what sounds like a veiled threat:

I am copying two members of the Keene Police Department in case you want to change your ways and act legal and save your friends.

You are very passionate in your beliefs and would make a great snitch.

Burridge evidently believes the police should take an interest in anyone who expresses support for drug policy reform. Talk about chilling.

Whats the next step?

On number 1, I'm talking about in comparison to a completely unregulated state where people are allowed to give to any canidate without having to report to any authority.

On number 2, you think pols meddling is something to watch but you think that it will be prevented if both parties agree to "protect themselves from monkey-business."  Frankly the two parties agreeing to "protect themselves from monkey-business" is what I am most worried about.  There are 300 million viewpoints in this country, but the two parties work to make sure only two are expressed.  I have a feeling their view of "monkey business" is people like bloggers exploiting "loopholes."  Once they lock in themselves as the only source of legal campaign funding, how do we ever get them out?

Yeah those would be some of my concerns too.

It seems like without outside influence it would become a cesspool of funds that kept flowing between the same canidates and consultants.  

It seems like this is another barrier to people with non-political backgrounds being able to break in.  Pols and consultants would become skilled at maneuvering the requirements and regulations while outsiders would look at the maze and just be confused.

Just to clarify on number one, I'm thinking about if canidates have to turn in some sort of list to the gov't to prove their small dollar donations, whats to prevent the gov't from using that list to harass people?  Like don't you worry that the DEA might like to get a look at the list of people funding a NORML backed canidate?

David,

Thanks for answering all my questions.  I'm really pretty clueless on the mechanics of how your systmem of public financing works, but I have to admit that I'm really skeptical of it.

Here are my main worries in no particular order:

1. How do you protect people who want to donate to unpopular canidates (maybe a NAMBLA backed canidated or, back in the day, an MLK backed canidate)?  I mean Lyndon Johnson used to due some pretty abusive stuff when he was president to make sure he wasnt flanked on the left.

2. How do you keep pols from meddling?  Once the source of funding is the government, how do you keep the politicians that run the government from messing with whatever formula exists?

3. Will this serve to further concentrate power in the hands of "wise old men"?  If funding came from DC, wouldn't this enhance their power?  And wouldn't they do everything in their power to direct the funds to "centrists"?

Thanks again

So would Lamont have been able to recieve out of state contributions?

In the Lamont-Lieberman primary, how would clean money have been distributed?