"OK, I hear you. Although I have no problem with tax money going to a candiadate's war chest (even if I dont' agree with said candiate) if that is the ONLY way of keeping things clean (provided the $$$ goes only to a well-defined war chest and not a personal slush fund)."
Keeping things clean? You're handing the keys to the asylum over to the inmates. Being able to prevent their opponents from getting any funding while being able to get as much as they need from the government will leave incumbents free to do just about any damn thing they please. You might as well let them decide whether or not their opponents will be allowed to run against them at all. It'll the founding of the first genuine American aristocracy. On top of that, nothing short of an act of God is going to prevent politicians who you've just given direct access to government money from funneling it into their pockets.
Really, I'd much rather see my politician's campaigns funded by the NRA. At least then I can choose somebody who is being bought off by groups that I agree with.
"I don't understand the general snideness of your responses either."
That tends to happen when you lead off with "Seldom have I seen so many words used to come up with an argument so lacking in imagingation."
--"Seldom have I seen so many words used to come up with an argument so lacking in imagingation."--
OOOH-KAAAY. I'm sorry. :-(
--Being able to prevent their opponents from getting any funding while being able to get as much as they need from the government will leave incumbents free to do just about any damn thing they please.--
If that be the case, then what about the second suggestion--keep lobbies out of the financing game entirley. Let the $$$ flow ONLY from private contributions of a certain amount. This way, like I said before, the politician/party has no choice but to "dance with the one who brung him/it."