RE: The Fuzzy Criteria Problem

[Jay Oliver <jaydeeo@aol.com>]

You have some interesting ideas, but I have questions and objections concerning some.

You wrote: "On campaign financing . . . If B chooses private funding, and raises more than the target, then the public funding for A is increased, so that no matter how much B spends, A will have enough to match B's spending."

Would you restrict this public largesse ONLY to the two major party candidates, or would you provide matching amounts for ALL?  Supposing that this system were in effect, and a Ross Perot or Steve Forbes sort decided to run as an independent using his own funds.  If he were to "raise" and spend, out of his own pocket, with absolute constitutional protection per the Buckley decision, $500 million, would the Democratic, Republican, AND the Reform, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, Socialist Workers, et al, candidates EACH get matching funds from the public treasury?  If not, why not? 

Also, you wrote: " . . . I give the most weight to protecting the principle of equality among all voters."

With respect, I believe that you, along with many current reformers among our elected politicians, are mixing apples and oranges.  There IS equality among voters, in the very real sense that each, no matter how wealthy, has one and only one VOTE.

Now, there is not, and cannot be equality of influence (or much of anything else) in a free society.  If you're concerned that wealth, numbers, motivation, etc. allows some individuals and groups to have "unfair" advantages in influencing the votes of their fellow citizens or the decisions by elected politicians, then why stop only at campaign funding?  Why not call for restricting the obviously louder and more influential (than those of ordinary folks) "voices" of the press?  Should the McCain-Feingold proposal be extended so that the Washington Post cannot editorialize or endorse candidates 60 days before elections?  If not, then why should its "wealth" trump that of the Sierra Club or the NRA?