RE: The Fuzzy Criteria Problem

[Jay Oliver <jaydeeo@aol.com>]

You answered, "Minor candidates probably shouldn't. But the major candidates should . . . "  But why???  Obviously there's no constitutional justification, since parties are not even mentioned in that document.  By what conceivable ethical or moral argument could one deny public funds to any candidate?

Concerning "equalizing" political influence, I repeat the question, just how much further should one carry "equalization" in a free nation?  Should use of one's wealth be prohibited in providing a better education for one's child, in purchasing better food, autos, clothing, homes, etc.? 

Ultimately, NO proposed system of controls on or reforms of the present funding situation addresses the real problem.  First, one must answer the question, WHY do people and groups want to influence politicians?

It is only because of the government's excessive and abusive powers to reward and to punish that people attempt to "game" the system and to obtain some advantage over others or to redress an advantage currently enjoyed by others.

As just one example, consider the present income tax system.  Most of the influence-buying and lobbying concerning it exists primarily because, first, it's not perceived as being fair, and second, because politicians have demonstrated that they're willing to use the tax system for purposes other that of raising revenue and that they like to play the game of offering special and inequitable favors.

Eliminate the present encyclopedia-sized tax code in favor of a much simpler one (flat, sales-based, or ?) with a minimal number, if any, of exemptions, deductions, credits, etc., and you will eliminate much of the present lobbying aimed at rigging it.