Public Funding of Campaigns

Jane Mayer makes it clear Citizens United is an abomination which has totally disenfranchised the non-wealthy, but in making the case, she also reminded me that the current crop of (m)(b)illionaire candidates is not unique.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_American_politicians

It seems to me that eliminating super-PAC anonymous money is important, but that still leaves the race vulnerable to eccentric billionaires like Trump and Perot who see public office as a plum they can buy to insure their own fortunes.  Fortunately, the public isn't very fond of that approach.

I think we need to take money out of the equation altogether.  There's no reason our presidents and congressmen have to be millionaires.  In fact, it'd be better for the country if they weren't.

We need public campaign funding.

Each candidate is given $2,000,000 to spend in the six weeks leading up to the election.  How they spend it is entirely up to them.  There will be debates moderated by educated people, like political science professors and business owners.

How the candidate field gets chosen I'm still a little fuzzy on.  We need to limit it to 4-5 candidates total.

Should it be like an initiative drive, where a candidate has to submit some number of signatures to qualify? American Idol where a TV audience votes on potential candidates? Judgeships where people have to be nominated by somebody else?

Interesting reading:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_elections

Public funding of campaigns is merely a bucket from an ocean of corruption. And the bucket leaks.

Before any real change happens over here, there will have to be a significant attitude adjustment. When I first came over here, I heard that people paid politicians huge sums of money during the election campaigns. I said "in England, we call that bribery and corruption". "No, that's just the way we do things over here". It is, but it's still bribery and corruption.

Too true, Richard.

I suspect most folks are vaguely aware that it is bribery and corruption, but it has been "the way things are done" for so long now that not everybody realizes it doesn't have to be, probably shouldn't be that way.

It's an opportunity.  Somebody who is outside the culture of corruption -- like Sanders and Trump -- can open peoples' eyes to the better way things can and should be done.  People would respond, people would realize that the establishment has been peddling bribery and corruption for decades, and decide to make a change in the way things are done.

Both Trump and Sanders are offering revolutions.  Their revolutions are very different in some ways, but -- if you squint just so -- they have a lot in common too.