> There is no better way to enshrine the status quo for eternity than limiting outside fundraising.
You state this as if it's obvious. It really isn't.
The conventional campaign finance reform thinking, which a lot of us agree with, is that campaign money subverts the normal democratic process wherein people make their voices heard, their representative does what they want, and if they don't the people vote in someone who seems more likely to do the job.
You seem to be saying that in the absence of campaign money, nothing will happen at all. That can't be what you actually mean?
The fundamental problem in running a challenger's campaign is that the incumbent is a lawmaker whose every action is covered by the news media. Incumbents have a HUGE built-in publicity advantage; the only way a challenger can counter that is by spending money on ads and events.
The secondary problem in today's U.S. election system is that the 2 largest political parties have baked all sorts of advantages for themselves into the law--for example, for a long time party committees were allowed to collect and spend a lot more money than independent committees. Citizens United did away with this distorting advantage, making it easier for people to organize support for challenger candidates outside of political parties.
> Incumbents have a HUGE built-in publicity advantage
This isn't true 100% of the time. In recent years people have been pretty eager to vote out incumbents, in some cases in favor of people who can barely speak in complete sentences...
> the only way a challenger can counter that is by spending money on ads and events.
There's also the press.
That last bit is interesting, thanks.
edit: I remain amused at what people will downvote
You state this as if it's obvious. It really isn't.
The conventional campaign finance reform thinking, which a lot of us agree with, is that campaign money subverts the normal democratic process wherein people make their voices heard, their representative does what they want, and if they don't the people vote in someone who seems more likely to do the job.
You seem to be saying that in the absence of campaign money, nothing will happen at all. That can't be what you actually mean?