Public campaign financing is not the logical answer
There have been a fair number of letters to this paper in support of public funding of campaigns in an effort to reduce “undue” influence of the elected. The idea is idiotic.
The only way to reduce special interest influence over politicians is to reduce the influence that politicians have over special interests.
But to give politicians more access to the public trough is just plain ridiculous. For those advocating this idea, by what formula will taxpayer dollars be distributed? How can we ensure those dollars will flow equally to challengers and incumbents? And most importantly, how will the use of taxpayers’ money reduce corruption in Albany? None of the writers in support have given concrete examples.
Who will write the laws that dictate how tax dollars will fund campaigns? The same people that are so easily corrupted that we need to publicly finance their campaigns!
If taxpayers fund campaigns, does that mean individuals, unions and corporations can no longer financially support a candidate? That’s a violation of the First Amendment. And if individuals, unions and corporations can still contribute to campaigns, then what is the point of public funding?
The Buffalo News along with other media need to thoroughly investigate and report to its readership unbiased answers to these questions. Something it failed to do with the Affordable Care Act.