Buckeye Gal...

Any system of public campaign financing must be voluntary in order to be considered constitutional.  The Supreme Court has ruled that political contributions are a form of free speech, and so a public financing bill that is not voluntary would certainly be challenged in court.  

Having said that, I do understand your skepticism that people will, in fact, opt into the public financing system.  However, the Fair Elections Now Act includes a provision that would provide "fair-fight funds" to candidates who accept public funds but whose opponents do not.  Under this provision, participating candidates would receive up to double the initial amount of public funds.  So there are considerations for participating candidates who run against individuals who fund their campaigns with their own money.  

But consider the overall merits of this bill: it eliminates a candidate's need to continually fundraise, it provides fair-fight money for participating candidates running against non-participating candidates, it includes a provision for discounted media, it provides free media vouchers, and perhaps most importantly, it would create a system of public financing that Americans see as a much needed ethical reform.

In a poll conducted by an independent research organization, 74 percent of likely voters supported a voluntary system of public financing.  Beyond that, this same research shows that an average of 80 percent of voters believe that publicly funded campaigns will result in a more ethical and fair electoral process. The fact is that the voters WANT this system.  That places a considerable amount of pressure on a candidate to use it, doesn't it?  

Billionaire candidates may not feel it necessary to opt into this system --they reason they don't need public funds.  But the political costs that a candidate might incur for not opting into this system --a system that many Americans want-- are immeasurable.  

Angela D'Orazio

This is not a partisan issue

Public financing of campaigns is about leveling the playing field so that no group has a disproportionate impact on the political process via  large contributions.  Under a system like the one we have now, the only voices that matter are the ones of moneyed interests.  And, as I mentioned in my blog, labor is not as moneyed as business but nonetheless has an important agenda.  Because of the pay-to-play nature of our current system, labor realizes the difficulty of pushing that agenda if it can't pay big bucks to be heard.  All that amounts to is an undemocratic system in which good reforms fall by the wayside because the groups who support them don't have the money to buy the ear of a representative.

Secondly, and to reiterate, this is not about partisan politics.  I think it's a fallacy to think of labor as only supporting Democrats, and vice versa.  Arlen Specter, the Republican co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, is a perfect example of why that assumption is a mistake.  A similar mistake may be made about the National Council of Churches, another supporter of the bill.  We might typically think of churches as supporting the Republican party, and if that were the case, then FENA must benefit the Republicans the most.  But that's not true either.  

Bottom line: this bill is not about Democrats or Republicans.  It's about creating a more democratic system in which all groups, regardless of contributing capabilities, have a voice in the political process.

Angela D'Orazio