RE: Choice 1 Starting Questions

[Joan Johnson <joan@altair.com>]

I am not sure Choice 1 is the total solution. The parts that appeal to me are
   - bans on out-of-state, foreign, corporate, PAC, and other special interest groups contributions to candidates and parties. Reason: brings us back to one person one vote; helps ensure local issues remain local.
   - public funding for elections. Reason: reduces pressure on candidates to raise money; increases possibility of more than one candidate for an office and thereby increases issue dialog; levels the playing field for all candidates

However, public funding without a spending cap won't prevent well-heeled candidates from flooding the media with campaigne ads. In addition, I at one time contributed to the federal and state campaigne funding initiatives. I stopped. Reason: the poor quality laws passed in my state as well as the number of issues the legislature pushed back onto the voters. In the federal arena, the performance of Congress caused me to re-consider my investment. During this period, congress passed the "at will" employment clause that gave corporations the ability to terminate employees without cause and without notice. This is but one example of what my buck bought. 

Free TV does level the playing field. It does not carry any provisions regarding quality, accuracy, or fairness of the broadcasts, nor a way to encourage the public to watch.

As for free speech... Limiting my monetary contribution to a candidate does not prohibit my placing ads in newspapers or on television. Nor does it limit my right to send in letters to the editor of any newspaper or submit an op-ed column.

Joan