What about independents? Would public financing mean only Democrats and Republicans could run? And how would it work for the primaries, where the more contested elections often take place? It's easy to throw public financing out there as a solution, but the devil is in the details.

The other problem is getting around the free speech issue. I don't know how you can reconcile pure public financing with a rich guy's right to spend whatever he wants to get his message out.

I'd prefer to do campaigning the British way. Limit it to a few weeks, and prohibit any campaigning that isn't reasoned debates on public airwaves or meetings. Cut the money and the demagoguery out of the equation!

Public financing is a horrible idea. Why would I, as a taxpayer, want to fund these campaigns? This just adds to the entitlement.

The only free speech that reporters believe in is their own. They love to stomp on the free speech of individual citizens, bloggers, etc.

The socialist solution proposed by Mr. Bernick is not the answer but is the danger of a society that lacks personal integrity. The financing of elections must remain open to the free market and abide by the Constitutional principle of free speech.

Where change is needed is in the character of those we elect. We need principled politicians, admittedly an oxymoron in today’s political climate.

If I were running for office, and a special interest group handed me a $50,000 check, I would thank them and then make it clear (in writing) that I appreciate and accept the contribution, but that in so doing, it in no way obligates me to vote in the interest of that group. I would then give them the option of rescinding the donation.

In other words, principled politicians do the right thing for the right reason. Voter guides should include this question: “If you receive special interest contributions, will you vote your conscience or act beholden to that special interest? Our elected officials should let the voters know they cannot be bought and that they have been elected to do the right thing for the right reason.

Cherilyn Bacon Eagar
World Class Education Research

"Great idea, but" has it right.

Where government financing of political campaigns has been implemented, the rules favor the incumbent parties, and make it more difficult for challengers to compete.

I oppose putting coerced "blood money" into political contests which, as advanced auctions of stolen goods anyway, are bad enough already.

I know I'm being unrealistic, but the real power lies with the people. If they cast an informed ballot, money becomes less of an issue. Money helps buy the votes of those who decide based on name recognition.

Some people think the Third District race was invalid because voter turnout was so low. I think the opposite. It was probably *more* valid because the uninformed voter stayed home.

Better get an amendment ready, because you would need to deny citizens the right to free association - if I like Obama and want to give him $1,000 because I think he will be a good President, why would you deny me that? Public financing would make voters much more ambivalent about politics, not the opposite as you claim. When people are able to spend money on campaigning, it essentially gives those interested in the process more control over the process. If you care about an issue enough to spend time and money on it, you should be allowed a disproportionate say in the outcome relative to those who do nothing but vote...

Complete public financing restricts free speech even more now than McCain-Feingold does. The tax payers should now fit the bill, and how many candidates should we finance. Just two, or twelve per race? Both options feel wrong, if you finance only two (the Two parties) it will promote those parties even more then they are now. But if there are twelve it gets very expensive.

Campaign financing is just not the proper role of the government.

So if each candidate received the same amount of money could a challenger ever be able to overcome the incumbant's advantage of name recognition? I think public financing would cement an incumbant's tenure for as long as they wish to ride it.

For those claiming public financing violates free speech, keep in mind it doesn't need to be a mandatory thing. It can be optional. The candidate who is rich or who thinks he/she can raise more through independent sources is free to do so. But the opportunity of public money does give the average, non-wealthy candidate running against an incumbent a better opportunity to run a credible campaign.

Consider also this incentive: If you reject the public funds because you're rich or can raise more independently, then the funds that would have gone to you instead flow to your opponent. Would Obama be rejecting public financing if he thought the funds he declined would instead go to McCain?

Admittedly, this is a very controversial issue. But don't doubt for a second that office holders are influenced - sometimes improperly - by their campaign contributors. And the larger the contribution, the greater the influence.

Take the retirment package. It's the right thing to do.

Public Financing would be a disaster. My money is just another outlet for my political speech. I will give wherever I feel appropriate.

While it may be optional to accept public financing for a campaign, there is NOTHING optional about paying for it. Why should ANY taxpayer be forced to finance the campaign rhetoric of the Neo-Nazi or Communist parties? Or would taxpayer money only be available to finance politically acceptable campaign rhetoric?

While less overt when one talks about the GOP, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitution Party, or independents, the principle remains the same. Why should anyone be forced to finance speech with which they disagree?

Jefferson, himself, spoke/wrote of the evils of forcing any man to pay for the propagation of ideas he found offensive.

And if you think the big two parties are entrenched now, just wait until every election has taxpayer money available to candidates who meet qualifications designed to assure that the GOP and Democrats get funding, but that not too many other parties ever do.

Yet again, Bernick shows his socialistic colors in thinking the answer to every problem is to force taxpayers to finance a government run solution.

You think that public finding is a net cost to you,
Special interest funding has put us 9 trillion in debt. We need politicians that answer to the people.

Somebody hands you $50K and you take it and you don't owe them anything? Nothing? Nothing at all? Wow. You won't get many such checks, my friend....

Pubic financing of campaigns is wrong headed - people actually paying attention and looking at issues and studying candidates is the right approach. Most average citizens don't donate to campaigns because they don't care or the candidates are uninspiring. I haven't seen very many examples of where money has bought votes because there usually is enough money on each side of an issue to cancel each other out. I suppose if money could buy votes we wouldn't be in the oil crisis we are in and we would be drilling in ANWR and off-shore - isn't everyone always talking about big oil owning Washington?!?!? Hey Bob, why don't you do an article on how people don't care about politics and how really good people don't run anymore because they are sick of sniping, ill-researched and immature articles like this one? Who in their right mind would want to get elected only to have lazy reporters question the motives of every vote and look for conspiracy theories in every corner of the Capitol?

Uh-no!
Isn't public financing of parks socialism?

Rather than encourage the wrong-headed public financing of political speech,

there is a simpler and better solution:

Just cap what a canidate can spend whether from donations or their own pocket!

Instantly you have limited the cost of an election!

And do not allow any third party or special interest to campiagn on behalf of a canidate.

simple indeed!

I can't believe you would allow this garbage to be published. I wish you would have made this paper a place where conservatives could go rather than the SLTrib jr. What a disaster this paper has become. No wonder your revenues stink.

Public financing of campaigns?
Isn't that socialism?

Cannon 5:18 whines about "a place where conservatives could go" ...
Ask me, and I will give you a very appropriate and well-deserved place to go. :>

"A Better Solution" -- Unfortunately for that idea, the First Amendment doesn't allow it. The case is Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

Uhh ... aren't we all forgetting something? One candidate just ran a campaign -- and WON by 20 points -- with only those donations he had on hand. It was a key part of Jason Chaffetz's platform: to run his campaign the way he plans to be in Congress. Chaffetz -- and many others -- have long seen the problem with special interest money financing campaigns or spoiled rich boys thinking they're entitled to buy a political office.

But it boils down to the personal choice of the candidate (whether he wants to be extravagant) and the personal choice of the voter (whether he wants to be impressed by the extravagance).

We've all complained about the money angle for decades, but voters keep putting the big spenders into office.

Until now.

I agree that the current system favors the wealthy. If I wanted to run for office, I wouldn't have the money to do so. However, to force the public to fund elections doesn't sound like the right solution...that basically equates to additional taxes. I don't want a tax increase just to fund an election. I have been impressed with Jason Chaffetz's ability to stay solvent in his campaign. That is a rarity in our current system.

I liked the comment above about the British system. Personally, I would love to see more debates on issues without all the mudslinging and rhetoric that we currently have. It would be nice to go back to pure debates like the Lincoln/Douglas debates. I think it would provide the American people with a better view of candidates.

Your case does not apply here.

The solution I discribed does not limit donations from a contributor.

But limits what a candidate can spend.

IN any case many high legal minds believe that that decision was very bad should be overturned. Much like McCain-feingold bill that actually does limit political speech 30 days or 60 days before an election.

But As I said my solution does apply to the contributor.

And it dose not limit political speech on issues because it allows anyone to speak and spend on political issues as much as they want or care about.

In fact it allows to anyone speak/spend add nausem on any political issue they wish to sway others on. You just can't endorse or mention a candidatate.

But only a candidate can spend money on a their campaign. And that that money is limited.

And all candidates have same limit, so let the best candidate win!

Bob, this is a well-done column. For those who have criticized, it is a column, not an investigative piece. He has proposed a solution to a growing problem. It's not necessarily the best solution, and of course there are cons as with everything else, but I give credit to Bernick for promoting discussion on this issue. Perhaps this will lead to the solution that is best for everyone. Because it's not good right now.

Public financing of campaigns continues to be a horrible idea. While it's true there are likely special interests buying government representatives, there are better ways to deal with the problem than taking away freedom of speech or forcing people to pay for speech they disagree with.

Preventing someone from taking money they've earned and using it to run for office is an amazing affront to liberty.

Forcing someone (e.g., through taxation) to promote ideas (e.g., abortion on demand) they feel are immoral is also clearly wrong.

A far better solution is to start obeying the Constitution that separates power between the federal government and the states. The current practice of ignoring the limited powers granted to Congress makes it very cost effective for special interests to buy polititians. This is the primary reasons why campaigns are so expensive.

I'd also like to see candidates refuse to take money from anyone except individuals in the district they are campaigning to represent.

I realize these are difficult solutions, but they will work without contributing to the destruction of our liberty.

We need more people that are willing to work with volunteers like Jason Chaffetz. I am voting for him for many reasons, but his ability to run an election showing he can be trusted with money is very good.

This is one more reason to vote for Jason Chaffetz.