This would require a fundamental change

[Northern Perspective]

...but in Canada, we control campaign financing by limiting expenditures. In other words, no one has a particular "big money advantage" because there is a cap. So we can have representatives (Members of Parliament) who are often something other than lawyers.

One is a playwright, another is a motorcycle mechanic, etc. etc. Big money is a rarity rather than a prerequisite.

It's certainly not perfect. In every political system, there are insiders/outsiders, graft/greed/corruption. And people cut corners, get caught screwing up.

However, there's something unconscionable about spending more than two BILLION to elect a president and some legislators. When Bloomberg spends upwards of 50 million to become NYC mayor. When Mark Dayton quits because the money issue(even for a wealthy man)is unmanageable and compromises his ability to govern.

So much more (and better)could be done with that money.

[LoZoccolo]

1. It would be nice, unfortunately...

...Democrats need twice as much money to do the same thing as Republicans. The Republicans can tell a few very simple lies with their money, then we have to match it debunking the lie, and then still spend money on the positive agenda aside from that.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Money truly is the root of all evil... it's not the money itself, but

what it allows people to do.

Of course, this is spoken like a true poor person. Poor but very happy.

[radfringe]

3. the campaign financing legislation

was suppose to do this -- but they made the 527 loophole in order to protect "free speech"

this was the big objection by repugs -- that spending limits in campaigns would violate "right to free speech"

in my book - speech ain't free if you have to pay for it

[Northern Perspective]

4. And the OTHER issue it runs into

is using "money raising" as an effective part of the campaign, ie.tying political candidates to interest groups, measuring the "success" of the horse-race (by how much money is raised), controlling the outcome (by shifting resources), getting people to emotionally commit to a particular campaign (because they've invested financially), etc.

BIG difference here, too, is that national campaigns are about six weeks, so while the behind-the-scenes stuff may be ongoing, the public part (ie. the money part) is rather short.

(To paraphrase a statement from an earlier era) If you've got them by their wallets, their hearts and minds will follow...

The systems vary, in so many ways, it's inappropriate to compare them, I suppose.