PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS-- ONE STEP CLOSER? TWO STEPS BACK?

You know what the root of all evil is, right? No, not Cheney; even deeper. Yes, money. And in politics-- even more so. All the reforms and rules and regulations... democracy itself in fact, is never going to be strong and vibrant while massive amounts of money can be deployed to corrupt the process and the system itself. There are few things the assinine pack of contemptible monstrosities the Republicans have fouled the Supreme Court with could have done to please their corporate masters more than to nullify the key part of McCain/Feingold they dispensed of this past week. Few Americans seem to care or to understand the significance of this crass reactionary ruling.

Two senior congressional Democrats, David Obey (D-WI) and Barney Frank (D-MA) say they do  understand-- and that they want to do something about it. They recognize that the incrementalism inherent in baby step reform has failed and they are proposing the kind of serious-- radical-- reform that will protect working Americans from the unmediated power of capital. Friday they started talking up a proposal to ban all private spending in general election congressional campaigns-- i.e.- public financing for House races.

Blasting the narrow partisan nature of the Supreme Court decision, a decision Frank correctly labeled "one of the most intellectually dishonest decisions ever rendered by the Supreme Court," the two lawmakers are proposing the most sweeping change to campaign finance in history. Their plan is dependent on voluntary donations from taxpayers on tax forms and would guarantee up to $2 million per race. The House would be a test case and if it worked out well-- even after perfection-- it could be applied to Senate and presidential races. The bill already has it's first co-sponsor, Tom Udall (D-NM). It is sure to be opposed by big money interests and their Republican congressional whores.

This is hardly a new idea-- and Arizona, Maine and Vermont already have partial public financing of elections--  and it is one that Frank and Obey have been working on for years. Last year the New York Observer explained it in a way everyone could understand. "Cheaper and more-contested races, more citizens participating as $5 donors, lawmakers unmolested by lobbyists en route to doing the people’s business-- how’s that for representative democracy?"