That is exactly what most politicians don’t want to do! They get their campaign money by spending taxpayer money on special interest giveaways, like the excessive roads I used as an example. To eliminate that benefit could cost them the election against a credible candidate.

That’s also why the public must demand it. We want politicians working for us, not them.

No, there is no such thing as a free lunch, but the question comes down to which “tax” is cheaper for the taxpayers. I’d argue that $5 is better than $1300, or any other number you might want to use instead. But Arizona is even better.

Yes, you could argue that the extra $50 will cause some speeders to spend nights in jail rather than paying the fine, and I’d counter that it’d also reduce traffic and drunk driving deaths. But I think we both are reaching a bit.

And with the taxpayer savings we could indeed increase reimbursement rates for Medicaid patients. And a whole lot more. I think politicians must decide whether they are on the side of the public or the special interests, and if the latter hope that the public is not smart enough to know the difference. But I’d also look at where it has gotten the current crop.

Let me also advise other readers that Jo Egelhoff is a candidate in the 57th Assembly district, and if she wins the seat may indeed (and I would hope) have to vote on this issue. So I am very pleased to see her interest in the subject and wish her luck on her campaign. Jo operates an excellent news web site at http://www.FoxPoliticsNews.net.

Well, the game is over. The Republicans are on the way out and we’ll soon learn if the Dems are made of any better stuff. If they want to be known as the party that fixed the system, they have that chance. It’s interesting to note that the R’s chose to turn the other way when, if they had moved on the chance, could be leading this race. Wow.

It’s interesting that neither party has yet to see that — if they cleaned up the political system — they would (a) reduce or eliminate wasteful government spending and unnecessary taxes, (b) solve many of the business and economic problems we are facing today, and (c) ensure their electability and control of government for decades to come!

They seem to have convinced themselves that the see-saw from one party to the next is the way it has to be, rather than putting themselves above it all and guaranteeing the loyalty of the voters and taxpayers.

Your attention grabbing headline, and the first sentence of the article clearly answer a rhetorical question. There are people (especially lobbyists) who will be against ending legalized bribery distorting and hijacking our government, no matter what.

But no one (and certainly not you) believes that campaigns for elected office can be conducted for free. Thank you for persistently and patiently pointing out that the big “donors” to the two major parties do not “contribute” without expectation that their investment will produce handsome returns for their bottom line. And for reminding us at every turn that those pay-back expectations are paid for by us, the citizens, and by the resources for which our government is responsible.

You’re right, Jack. There is no free lunch. It’s naive to think that we taxpayers don’t pay the bill to the waiter for the current corrupt system. And you, at least, are not naive.

CHOICE for A CHANGE
http://clydewinter.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/choice-for-a-change/

Okay, so have it 100% come from criminal fines. But if you ask the public whether they’d rather pay $5 or have the special interests fund the campaigns, 80% will support the $5. And incidentally, if you really want to talk about which is more imposing on the idealists, it’s the current system that costs the public far more than $5. That money, whether $1300 or a small fraction, is also coming from the public.

And if people want to support the politician they think advances their position best, so be it. Do it in the voting booth, not by contributing $1000 to buy dirty ads on TV.

And, again, the first amendment doesn’t play into it if the politician opts to take public funds in lieu of private cash.

Argue the merits of taking big money out if you will, but this “Free” #$*($*#(* is just plain insulting. While we can all see the problems that come with campaing funding, there really isn’t any way to take money out of politics. People will always support the politian they think advances their position best. Government workers will always vote big governement. Tax payers will likely lean more towards lean government.

I really don’t see how anyone can ever take money out of politics. I love the idea in theory. Line up your platforms, give us the details, then let us vote. But that “pesky” first amendment kind of gets in the way doesn’t it.

But ZERO comes from taxes on corporations and ZERO comes from unwilling taxpayers. You could argue that those who violate the law and pay a surcharge on their fine are taxpayers too, but we could then argue that they are also “willing.”

The point is that the money is NOT coming from special interests looking to receive taxpayer-funded assets in return.

Will it actually eliminate the $1300? Who knows? Maybe some of it and maybe not all of it. But most certainly the legislators will change their priorities and spend our money in the best interest of the public. Perhaps fewer stupid highway interchanges will be rebuilt, fewer roads to nowhere, fewer taxpayer dollars spent building roads in developments for the realtors, fewer subsidies and etc.

Jack