I don't think so... I guess it's quite clear that the NRA pits a lot of money into the political system, but still you have the same gym laws as 20 years ago (or even worse) even if the majority demands more regulations...
Why not change the whole system of financing parties?
What if the government pays every part in rate to their latest results. Let's say for every 1000 voters you get 20,000$ - so, if you get 90 million votes the state will pay you 1.8 billion to finance your next campaign and every politician who runs for an office has to get finance by his party as well.
The only other legal way to finance a party would be by membership fee (only real people can be members and EVERYONE has to pay the same)
Any kind of donation, or sponsorship would be illegal
Well, there are a couple of foundational issues, first. The party system was not well received when we founded the country. And the country has been through many parties, although we do tend to stay with only two. In fact, from a federal perspective, the party system doesn't exist. It is recognized within the rules that each chamber of Congress uses, but not by statute, law, or anywhere in the Constitution.
Second, the spending of money is a form of speech. We give money to a candidate because we endorse his/her candidacy for a position. Making illegal to spend money would be difficult.
> Would buying lawn signs that I put up myself, that say... Vote for "X", and then spent money to hire local kids to pass out the signs for people to put on their lawns... be the same as spending money?
> Would producing a billboard that says... "X" voted against our schools... be illegal? And if so, then how about when the evening news or local paper prints that same comment?
> Would going out to a community event and speaking at a town hall for, or against, a particular candidate or issue, be the same? What about paying for the transportation to bring people to the event, or, for a guest speaker?
Next, how do you define the results, for the public contribution? Candidate "X" appears on multiple lines each one belonging to a different party (Republican, Libertarian, Right-To-Life) or (Democrat, Pro-Choice, Liberal). Which party gets the money? Do they have to spend the money in the same city, county, state, district, as last time, even though the next cycle isn't for 2, 4, 5, 6, years?
Next, does this trump State laws regarding parties, participation, and elections? This also encompasses the question of requiring memberships to all be equal. there are so many types of organizations that give, directly or indirectly, to politics, that forcing equal membership dues would trample our rights of free association.
But the two most important issues, forcing a purely public options raises tax money that has to be apportioned. That makes the funding of small state elections almost impossible. And, a purely public funded system entrenches the parties, so that a new party can NEVER compete, since it will never get enough votes last cycle to earn enough to adequately compete next cycle.
Now, I like the idea that businesses can't contribute to campaigns, since businesses are voters, aren't part of the census allocation of votes/apportionment, and aren't (or shouldn't be) afforded equal rights to individuals. But, this is part of the Citizen's United debate.
