Wrapping up

[Cindy O'Connor &lt;cloconnor&gt;</li>]

I am not sure my thinking has changed so much as it has been challenged.  I have thought more about how some of my pet ideas would, in reality, be applied.  I commend those of you who have combined the areas of discussion into concise suggestions. I was glad to examine my beliefs, and to find so many who can articulate them so well. I still think we need some regulation of campaigning.  No regulation is an invitation to monied interests running amok.  The growing sense of impotence that results from big donor influence is doing grave damage to citizen engagement. I have to hope that the "mad as hell" factor will kick in soon, and we will have a ground swell of reaction.   

I favor cooperation and more civic responsibility on the part of the media for their part in making democracy work.  We should require, as a condition of their free license, that they provide time for political discussion, debates, exposure to complex issues, at times when viewers may have their sets on.  We need to figure how to make issues more interesting to viewers so that they will make an effort to learn about issues.  One effective way (although hardly desireable) in California has been to have rolling black-outs.  

I am more in favor of separating Lobbyists from contributions than I was before.  I believe in the value of the information lobbyists bring, and in their right to do so.  When gifts go with that info, the playing field is no longer level.

I do not think full disclosure will solve anything.  We know now who is giving large amounts to office seekers and holders.  Why would making disclosure of unregulated amounts make any difference?

In conclusion, I am unchanged in my belief that the only way to get to where we want to be is public finacing.  I just don't see any other way.  For those who say they do not want their tax dollars going to candidates they don't support, I say our income is doing that right now.  Every business, every union, every interest group is engaged in buying access.  When I buy something sold by a corporation and made by union members, I am enabling them to support candidates I don't like.  We can't escape it.  If paying for minor candidates bothers us, then I say in the larger scheme, 12 million to Pat Buchanan was peanuts compared to the system that allows 500 million to flow unregulated and unreported.  

I have thought of some criteria for evaluating campaign financing proposals I would like to share.  Any additions or corrections are very welcome.
 
1. It should enable and encourage fair competition
2. It should have means to reward and encourage citizen engagement and participation.
3. It should enciourage and provide for open discussion and media coverage of issues.
4. It should encourage faith and trust in elected officials through rewards for personal voter contact.

And that is what I got from this wonderful discussion.