Public financing

The "campaign finance" reformers are back.

Seems the number of U.S. taxpayers who check that "this won't cost you a thing" box on their income tax forms to send a dollar to the presidential campaigns of the Republican and Democratic candidate has now dwindled to 10 percent.

The reformers can't figure out why the public is so dumb they can't see that letting the government finance all the election campaigns is the only way to eliminate corruption in the system.

(Hint: If the Congress went back to the far more limited tasks outlined in the Constitution, why would all these greedy capitalists feel any need to bribe the congressmen to keep the regulators off their backs?)

Legislation was introduced Tuesday to cap donations to U.S. House and Senate candidates at $100, with the federal government offering a $4-to-$1 match for contributions from home-state residents. Candidates could raise as much as they want and would also get a lump sum -- $900,000 or more -- from the government.

"It's total hypocrisy if you're not for public financing," explains former Connecticut Democratic Rep. Toby Moffett, who shocked everyone upon leaving office by becoming a lobbyist. "You're not getting to the link between lobbying and access unless you attack campaign finance."

Otherwise known, unhappily for the sponsors, as "freedom of speech."

Unlike the system for presidential elections, which offers taxpayer funds to those who limit spending, congressional candidates could raise an unlimited amount of money in addition to a federal grant of $900,000 for House candidates and $1.5 million for Senate candidates, split between the primary and general elections. The catch is that no donation could be more than $100.

To qualify for the federal money, House candidates would first have to take in $50,000 from 1,500 people, according to the proponents' Web site. Senate candidates would have to raise more.

The program would be funded through a surcharge on large federal contractors. Of course, that means those contractors would have to increase their bids on government projects. The projects would therefore cost more. The added taxes to cover those added costs would then be paid by ...

Ohhh. Did you peek?

Proponents admit their latest scheme doesn't have a chance unless President Obama endorses it. But of course, candidate Obama decided not to accept government hand-outs for his own campaign, since that would have limited his ability to do his own, private fund-raising. So what would his proposed endorsement sound like, precisely? "For everyone but me, I think this is a great idea ..."?

The plan discussed above won't work, but it's a good step toward a plan that would at least make it clear what the forces of "campaign finance reform" are really up to.

To eliminate all misunderstanding, proponents might want to tweak their plan just a little. Uniformed government agents could visit every workplace in America in the early autumn of each even-numbered year. There, they would stick a gun in the chest of every worker, demanding a 10-dollar bill "to finance your congressman's re-election campaign." Then, reformers could proceed to ban newspaper, radio and television stations from showing a photo or mentioning the name of any challenger who doesn't have his or her own $50,000.

Some might worry that this would make it harder to unseat an incumbent. But how could it be any harder? Incumbent congressmen who seek re-election today fail to win at a rate so low you would have had a better chance trying to unseat a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

If proponents don't like that "campaign finance reform" proposal, there is one more: Free incumbents from the onerous task of fund-raising, entirely. Limit members of Congress to a single term.