Reply to comment

First of all, this isn't about campaign finances - it never was. It's far more involved than just that. Even were we to decide to tax ourselves again - something no incumbent politician would ever complain about - do you seriously think it would make a difference?

We have federal campaign financing. President Obama was consistent in his support of it throughout his political career - until he had the opportunity to use it. Then he declined.

You see, we can't keep MONEY out of political speech. Oh, the internet is somewhat of an equalizer when it comes to the effects of money and advertising, but it doesn't really replace paid people working for you. There is a whole advertising and PR industry that exists because they CAN affect events, and the one with the most money is always going to have more of those people. More billboards, more signs, more name recognition. These advantages are real - but not insurmountable. We aren't going to be able to prohibit this in any event. Political speech is one of the highest forms of protected speech under the US Constitution. You aren't going to be able to tell the rich person to NOT tell people to vote for Joe Smith, and you aren't going to be able to penalize Joe Smith when the rich person does, either.

The real advantage, however, is incumbency. That's where the corruption starts. That's where the serious money goes to those who can divert a portion of the incredible amount of tax money that flows in to Sacramento to the supporter. It isn't just campaign funds - it's all sorts of perks and pleasures and seats on boards where you (or your spouse or kids) get paid a lot and do very little. Remember when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and Hillary Clinton, a person with no business knowledge whatsoever, was 'coincidentally' picked for a lucrative job on the Wal-Mart board of Directors?

Incumbent politicians get supported in a variety of ways - not just with campaign contributions. And the Supreme Court and the US Constitution makes it almost impossible for you to stop that money at the supplier. We could, of course, stop it at the recipient.

All we would have to do is force legislators to recuse themselves from any vote in which they - or any of their immediate family - had a financial interest. Or prohibit them from taking ANY other compensation while working for the public as an elected representative and have them forfeit their pensions if they work for a company they have helped within five years of retirement.

The real problem - it would appear - is that we have the best representatives that money can buy.