Fair Elections Gets Stump Time

Our friends over at Common Cause highlight the recent Democratic debate in Nevada where public funding of elections got some air play.  Senator Obama explained: 

Ultimately, what I would like to see is a system of public financing of campaigns and I am a co-sponsor of the proposal that is in the Senate right now.  That's what we have to fight for.

Watch it.

In fact, all of the Democratic candidates have expressed their support for a congressional public funding system modeled on those in Arizona and Maine.  Senator Clinton announced her support back in April.

The publicity is great.  However, in the meantime, nearly all of the candidates could be doing a lot more to disclose where their private money is coming from.  Yesterday, we sent letters to candidates asking them (again) to make the information on how much money their bundlers are raising for their campaigns public. 

A keystone benefit of public funding is that special interest money can no longer buy influence with candidates.  Until we fix the presidential public financing system, the voters at the very least have the right to know who is bankrolling the candidates.

Comments

[Handsome_Lake]

That's nice, Obama. You support public financing of campaigns, RIGHT. Couldn't help but notice that neither you nor any of your incumbent peers spoke one word of protest when MSNBC wouldn't let Kucinich debate, even after he won a victory in Nevada's state Supreme Court for the right to do so.

If you ACTUALLY supported public financing, you and the progressive democrats might sit out of the debates until Everyone, not just you folks who the pundits deem "electable" or "viable candidates" (read: good actor), could campaign fairly for office. That way, MSNBC wouldn't have the leverage to exclude Kucinich, since he'd have just as much money as you, Edwards, and Clinton do to buy off the networks . . . I mean by AIRTIME, whoops.