Nancy, the very short answer to most of your questions is "yes". Yes, I oppose limits on campaign contributions by individuals. Yes, the CEO of a company is also an individual, so should not be limited in campaign contributions.

Immediate and easily-accessed transparency would, in my view, be a tremendous deterrent to a politician behaving in a way that is corrupt. No, it's not perfect, but it's better to live with an imperfect system than to keep attacking the Constitution and fundamental American principles of liberty.

One area where you and I agree is that there is a serious issue with the advantage of incumbency. For example, there's a mini-scandal down in the 5th Congressional District with reports that freshman Congressman Doug Lamborn seems to have abused his "franking privilege", using his right as a Congressman to send free mail to constituents to send what one constituent has described to me as "glossy campaign material". This sort of behavior must be not just stopped, but punished.

Regarding "voter owned elections", I maintain my position that they are unconstitutional and immoral. Why not have "voter owned windmills", or something else that liberals think is a good idea, and force every person to contribute $5 toward a windmill in their town even if many don't want to? And what about the guy who loves the idea of a windmill and wants to contribute $5,000 to its construction?

You may say "elections are different", but from a point of view of my right to do what I want to with my hard-earned money, they're not different. All I see is the "campaign finance reform" movement trampling people's rights of free speech and free association.

Again, I don't care at all how nice an idea people think a particular outcome is (i.e. more electoral competition, which I like, or "the rich should have less influence", which I disagree with) if there's no authority for it in the Constitution. And clearly there's no federal authority to say I can't give as much as I want to a candidate of my choice.

Of course, most of what the Federal Government does is not authorized by the Constitution, so your position would fit in fine with the trend of this nation over the past 60 years. But I'll fight the destruction of our liberty every step of the way, and that includes fighting economic and political intrusiveness of the left and the social intrusiveness of the right.

My preference for dealing with these electoral issues is as-close-to-perfect-as-possible transparency combined with term limits. (Term limits are another issue, and I see good arguments on both sides, but I could live with them much more happily than I can live with McCain-Feingold.)