Fair enough. Let's go with the understanding that you are completely against this and see where we can get to past that. In reality, you are against it but let's say for discussion's sake that you are willing to find some mutual ground where it would still irk the crap out of you but you could live with it happening if (X). Ok?
What if it was handled in this manner? (These numbers are arbitrary and not the point of the discussion. They can be made real in a later discussion one we find out where you could live with it.)
Everyone who gets, say, 50,000 signatures and $5 with from everyone who signs is then eligible for public financing. This way its not just everyone and their brother signing up to get like $180,000 bucks for a gubernatorial race wherever.
But if someone does do what is required then they get the money. (The sum would be determined by an average of the last three races' expenditures.)
Anyone who doesn't want to be publicly funded can opt out, no questions asked and they can raise all the money they want within the limits, for instance $2400 per person.
However, should someone opt out and raise more than the public funds limit, the state must then match each publicly funded candidate to the dollar that is raised by the candidate(s) who opted out?
Here's why I would definitely be FOR this. It absolutely doesn't do what you are worried about. It doesn't restrict anyone's free speech. If donors want to fund a candidate then they can and no one's stopping them but it doesn't allow that candidate to buy the election by having more airtime, ads than anyone else which I would hope you would agree is how some candidates have gotten into office.
We can say what we will about Ross Perot. I was very much in favor of his candidacy and for a short time felt that he was my guy. (I soon got the feeling he was kinda coo-coo.) What I loved about his run was that he wasn't shut out because he had the money to play with the big boys. Compare this to the candidacy of someone like Ralph Nader who couldn't compete in that same manner and had he been able to play with the big boys, who is to say what might have happened? It really doesn't matter what might have happened because he didn't have the money.
And that's the point. If the Big Two are competing at the $180,000 level and someone who really wants in can't raise $30,000 and compete then Americans have choice limitations. If freedom of choice is the goal, then supporting such a system as public financing only INCREASES choices.
With public financing, the also-ran parties of days gone by (Libertarian, Green, Socialist, whatever) have a shot and the elections can be decided on MERITS rather than name recognition.
The reservation I can see having greater merit on the other side of argument is that our tax dollars would be going to fund a candidacy that we might not necessarily agree with or may viscerally oppose. For me, for instance, it would really irk me if someone in the KKK where to get the necessary signatures and matching funds then qualify for the public funding.
What makes me ok with that is that it allows whoever I signed for and gave $5 to then, highlight the fact that the KKK candidate is a racist, therefore the question is not can the KKK raise more money and more money to make their message on non-racist topics louder with more advertising till the racist charge can't be heard because the other guy can't keep up financially.
Another plus to public financing is that it frees up the elected official to actually do his job. Rather than spending a lot of time at fundraisers and begging for money constantly, the elected official can actually listen to people and get to know his constituency as a whole rather than as dollar amounts. The plight of the middle and lower classes could actually get the ear of the official because he isn't being paid for his time in hopes of raising more money from whoever can throw a lot of money his way. Since the money issue is removed, the only way he can keep his office is by actually listening to the people who elected him and pleasing them.
With public financing or "clean elections", a full audit of the expenditures of the candidate would only be natural.
Lastly, this is already happening in many places across the US.
From Wikipedia
Clean Elections (also called Clean Money or Voter-Owned Elections) is a system of government financing of political campaigns (a form of campaign finance reform). It is currently (2006) only being voted and implemented on the state level in the United States. Some form of Clean Elections legislation has been adopted, mostly through ballot initiatives, in Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts (though in the latter two it has been weakened or repealed). Clean Elections was passed by the Connecticut state legislature and signed by the Governor in December of 2005. Two municipalities in 2005, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Portland, Oregon have also passed Clean Elections for municipal elections. A clean elections ballot initiative, Proposition 89 was defeated in California in 2006 by almost a 3-1 margin.
Under a Clean Elections system, candidates hoping to receive public financing must collect a certain number of small "qualifying contributions" (often as little as $5) from registered voters. In return, they are paid a flat sum by the government to run their campaign, and agree not to raise money from private sources. Clean Elections candidates who are outspent by privately-funded opponents may receive additional public matching funds.
Because the system is voluntary, it appears not to run afoul of the United States Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision, which struck down mandatory spending limits as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Comprehensive Clean Elections systems have been in effect in Arizona and Maine for several years. Not surprisingly, most candidates take the subsidies rather than compete under the resulting handicap of raising voluntary contributions. In Maine, an overwhelming majority (3/4) of state legislators take the government money. In Arizona, the same is true of a majority of the state house, as well as the current Governor (Janet Napolitano). In 2005 Connecticut also passed a Clean Elections bill.
One thing I forgot. It only behooves the candidate to stay in the public financing and not opt out and raise more money because doing so would cost the tax payers more money. If I opt out and raise $500,000 then the state or whoever must then match every other candidate (maybe not dollar for dollar in some cases) another $320,000 on top of what they've already gotten. Now that may not be an impediment to some but I think the voters would eventually catch on that anyone opting out feels that they can't compete on the issues and amplify their lackluster message in order to get greater name recognition.
