WHEN DID IRRELEVANCE EVER MATTER BEFORE?:

OPTING OUT: Irrelevance Stalks a Post-Watergate Invention (GLEN JUSTICE, 11/16/03, NY Times)

FOR nearly three decades, the public financing system for presidential campaigns has done the job set out for it in the post-Watergate era: feeding hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to incumbents, challengers, Republicans, Democrats and third-party candidates while placing a limit on spending.

This time around, though, it is losing traction, and critics are asking if the system has outlived its usefulness and if American taxpayers want to keep financing it. They also wonder if any change can provide enough resources to enable candidates to compete with those who can raise formidable sums without federal help.

Why not just let any US citizen and no one else--the "no one" including non-persons like corporations, unions, etc.--contribute as much as they want and require candidates and parties to disclose fully who gave what? Isn't greater ease of raising money likely to reduce the influence of givers, rather than boost it?

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 16, 2003 10:32 AM