I had a discussion the other day with a good friend of mine who is a heavy hitter in the "centrist" Democrat realm, an official at a moderate, left of center think tank. We had this chat over lunch, and at one point, we began talking about campaign finance, mostly on the Presidential level. I repeated my standard, "unlimited contributions from individuals, with 100% transparency." In what in retrospect, I now see as a potentially brilliant codicil to this approach, he said, "sure--but every penny raised in a State has to be spent in that State". I asked him to elaborate on this and here's what he said:
1. It reinforces federalism, something the framers drove into the Constitution but which has been chipped away at over the past two centuries. That this would come from a committed Democrat was mind-bending and reassuring.
2. He acknowledged the "free-speech" problems with this approach, but then offered that ALL campaign finance law abridges free speech in some ways, but this way does so less than others (at least in theory"
3. His answer to the "rich guys buying elections" charge boils down to this: take whatever party's big dollar donor evil doer that you want--they get to spend the hell out of themselves--on activities in ONE STATE. At most, they "buy" two Senators and one state for a President--if that's the way you want this to be viewed. This means the Koch Brothers essentially could buy....Kansas.
There is much to be considered here. What do you think about this? I am really intrigued by it.