"A system that would allow incumbents an even greater advantage by funneling public funds into their war chests (and eventually into their own personal pockets)? My tax dollars going to fund a small political party that supports abortion on demand? Why, who could possibly oppose such a plan..."
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 $$$ goes only to a well-defined war chest and not a personal slush fund). The only other option would be totally "neuter" lobbies by preventing ANY money tracable to a lobby to go to ANY candidate (i.e the ONLY way a candiate could raise money--if no public funding--would be by strictly limited private contributions). At least that solution would ensure that a politician "danced with the one who brung him." I don't understand the general snideness of your responses either. I'm just trying to suggest improvements in the system--and Lord knows there is plenty of room for them!
"OK, I hear you. Although I have no problem with tax money going to a candiadate's war chest (even if I dont' agree with said candiate) if that is the ONLY way of keeping things clean (provided the $$$ 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."