Why isn't there more of a clamor for Public Campaign Financing?

[iconoclastNYC]

Molly Ivins:

"Reform follows scandal as night the day, except in these sorry times, when it appears we may not get a nickel's worth of reform out of the entire Jack Abramoff saga. Sickening. A real waste of a splendid scandal. When else do politicians ever get around to fixing huge ethical holes in the roof except when they're caught red-handed? Do not let this mess go to waste! Call now and demand reform!

Sheesh. Tom DeLay gets indicted, and all the Republicans can think of is a $20 gift ban. Forget the people talking about "lobby reform." The lobby does not need to be reformed, the Congress needs to be reformed. This is about congressional corruption, and it is not limited to the surface stuff like taking free meals, hotels and trips. This is about corruption that bites deep into the process of making laws in the public interest. The root of the rot is money (surprise!), and the only way to get control of the money is through public campaign financing.

As long as the special interests pay to elect the pols, we will have government of the special interests, by the special interests and for the special interests. Pols will always dance with them what brung them. We have to fix the system so that when they are elected, they got no one to dance with but us, the people—we don't want them owing anyone but the public. So the most useful reform bill is being offered by Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)—public campaign financing. We, the citizens, would put up the money to elect the pols. This bill won't cost us money, the savings would be staggering."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060221_molly_ivins_reform

Why aren't the Democrats pushing for this now?

One clue. The DLC says no.

DLCer Bruce Reed who says "Campaign money doesn't affect member voting as much as one might think." writes about 10 actions that the Democrats should advocate in order to "Drain the swamp" of D.C. pay-to-play corruption.

Public Financing of elections is not one of the ten items.

I guess that's no surprise. After all the the DLC exists to funnel corporate cash into the coffers of pro-corporate Democrats. If progressive democrats could turn to public funds to run their campaigns they wouldn't need to pledge fealty to the corporate agenda in order to have enough money to run an effective campaign.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253366&kaid=127&subid=177

[Doctor_J]

1. Because Murdock is not content to control 40% of the information we get

he also wants to be able to actually buy elections as well.

[iconoclastNYC]

2. This doesn't explain why our Democratic leadership isn't fighting for this

This would help Democrats all over the country run for office. It would free our leaders from spending most of thier time raising money from corporations and thier officers.

I just don't understand why the Democratic party doesn't fight for issues like this. I know we don't have the votes right now but you lay the groundwork for it now.

[Doctor_J]

3. Feingold tried to defend his seat w/o PAC money a few

years ago and damn near lost because of it. In order to make a serious move in this direction, we'd have to actually walk the walk, not just talk the talk, and that could be disastrous.

[iconoclastNYC]

4. I don't think so.

I don't think the Democrats have to unilaterially disarm by swearing off certain types of funding.

What I think they should do is start a 50 state effort to get public financing in on the state level and when about 2/3rd of them get that it should be easy as pie to get it in at the federal level.