Ross, in your post the other day about public financing of elections, you said that you had no problem with the idea that Americans with money essentially pick the winners in our elections, so long as such contributions are "immediately, and publicly disclosed." I want to make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that you oppose any limits whatsoever on campaign contributions from individuals to candidates?

Does that mean, for example, you'd be fine with Zillionaire X giving the Senate candidate of his choosing a cool $10 million to run a race? Why stop there? Does said Zillionaire have the right to contribute billions to try to buy elections for the entire Congress and the presidency?

You also wrote that you're defending unlimited contributions from individuals but not necessarily corporations or unions (which, of course are already prohibited from contributing directly to campaigns under federal election law.) So is it ok, in your understanding of political ethics, that Qwest or Microsoft or should be limited or prohibited from contributing, but that the CEO of Qwest or Microsoft shouldn't?

Of course the courts for years have upheld the idea of limits on campaign contributions. In the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court said that campaign contribution limits were legitimate [1]because "to the extent that large contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential officeholders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined."

Anybody who has looked at how campaign contributions flow can see that much of the big contributions from individuals come from CEOs and high level executives for a long list of corporate interests. Often you see something like a long list of executives for a telecom company-and their spouses, too-giving to the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee on the same day. You dig a little deeper and you see that the company said executives work for have an important piece of legislation before the committee.

Your typical consumer, meanwhile, doesn't even know this money-for-influence game is even going on-until he or she gets the cable bill, or the phone bill, or whatever bill, and the cost is higher because of some loophole or other that said company got out of that committee. And even if she did know about that key vote or deliberation in that committee, it's doubtful she'd have the cash to pony up for a seat at the table.

Public financing of elections, or Clean Elections, helps level the playing field, lessening the disparity of influence between the CEOs and consumers. And while you find the name Orwellian, it's the one that voters in Arizona and Maine approved in enacting the law. In some places the system has a different name, such as "Voter Owned Elections."

Whatever you call it, public financing helps boost electoral competition. In Maine, where Clean Elections has been in place since 2000, there are now more candidates running and more contested elections [2].

This study of Arizona [3], which also has the system, shows a decrease in the gap between fundraising by challengers and incumbents. And the system is widely used. At present, nine out of eleven statewide officials, including the governor, in Arizona and 84 percent of the Maine legislature ran and won under such a system. Public financing of elections is about enhancing fairness, evening the playing field, and increasing competition.

I'm all for prompt and public disclosure of campaign contributions. But that alone won't prevent creeping plutocracy.