Quote:
There is a case to be made that ability to attract money operates as a gatekeeping function for a national candidate, meaning that it's necessary but not sufficient. To illustrate my point: if I run for president in a publicly financed system, there is nothing to stop me from dipping my hand into the public's pocket and running for president. The taxpayers would be obligated to finance my quixotic dream (or egomaniacal quest, as you might choose to see it), no matter how insane it might be for me to think I would remotely be qualified to be president. Or Senator, or Congressman.
But if I'm required to actually convince people to part with their hard-earned money to support my candidacy, then at the very least I have passed through an evaluative process by a skeptical audience and passed....
|
Loquitor... I think if you were to look at the Ariz and Maine laws, among others, you will see that there are provisions to ensure that
public funding is made available to candidates that can demonstrate a level of viability and not those with a "quixotic dream or egomaniacal quest". The provisions generally require of having to reach a threshold of a specific number of contributions from small donors (varies by state) in order to receive federal funding.
The proposed
federal bill (will be re-introduced this year, with little likelihood of any action) has similar "eligibility" requirements for candidate for the House of Rep.