need more fairness for third party candidates

I read about the three steps that would be required of candidates wanting public funding under the Fair Elections Now Act, and I was favorably impressed by the ways it would not invite the same kinds of court challenges that we just saw successfully mounted against McCain-Feingold.  

(Unfortunately, however, the Fair Elections Now Act would also do absolutely nothing to keep corporations from buying "issue ads" designed to help the candidate they think would be most favorable to their interests, which candidates would likely be grateful even if they did not in any way seek the support.  So ultimately this new legislation actually would probably not keep corporations as corporations from buying public office for the candidates most favorable to their bottom line, which I see as the biggest problem.  Anyone interested in this problem should look into the strange twists of 1860s to 1880s US history that resulted in the fact that the same Constitutional Amendment--14--that let former slaves become persons instead of property ended up letting corporations become "persons" also--with Free Speech rights, the protected rights to try to influence politics.  See http://www.wilpf.org/ccp_study_session3.)

But I was profoundly disturbed by the notion that independent and third party candidates need to meet a 150% higher threshold to prove they are worthy of public funds for their campaigns.  With some 20 presidential candidates right now offering themselves as Democrats or Republicans, it's abundantly clear that, were this Fair Elections Now Act already law, we'd probably have 100 or more "Democrats" or "Republicans" to chose from, and people like Tom Vilsack, former Democratic governor of Iowa, would not have dropped out of the race (he did so very early, if you don't recall) because of funding problems.  The idea of the Act is supposedly more political speech and not less, so this scenario should be welcomed.  Yes, their parties will eventually anoint one of them as its nominee, and then presumably public funding for the others would end.  But that will happen in about 14 months, and this campaign has already been going on since December of 2006, 7 months back.  That's 21 months of funding, whereas any independent or third party candidate won't begin a serious campaign for several months yet.  The Greens will very definitely put forth a candidate, but I don't think anyone knows who it is yet, and I am well connected with people who would know.  

So I would like to see the legislation amended to make the test the same for third party and/or independent candidates as it is for major party candidates.  The more political speech, the better.  That's the whole idea of the First Amendment (by flesh and blood speakers, not by the legal entity of the limited liability corporation!).  There is no reason to think that the country is anything but enriched by anything that removes the barrier the two mega-parties in this country pose to anyone else who wants to try to win the votes of citizens (not those of parties) to serve in public office!  

The appropriate way to keep money from being wasted by someone who imagines they can take it and just host parties and travel the country (or state) is to set up requirements to be met every quarter to prove that one is conducting a good faith effort to mount a winning political campaign.  But one can do that without the imprimatur of the Dems or the GOP.  The legislation can also promise anyone who commits fraud with this money a serious court challenge after the fact to recoup the funds multiple times over (and to require they pay all court and attorney costs of the case if found guilty)--and/or a long prison term.