@ David… My father always said, “Why would anyone spend $500k for a job that pays $39k a-year” … In this lay my reasoning for believing the issue worthy of discussion.

The amount of money collected by a candidate and spent on a campaign should be limited by law to twice the annual salary of the position they seek. This could be a small donor contribution match concept or a straight funding concept. So long as the limitation remains intact. This would level the playing field for all candidates and prevent the excessive funding of the Special Interests’ pick. Any candidate that exceeds the lawful limit shall be immediately disqualified and removed from the ballot. I think this would force the candidates to use their contributions wisely and may result in an increase in the number of candidate forums and debates. It will become more important for candidates to get out there and tout themselves, their ideas, and their platforms… rather than rely on consultant-developed BS mailers and commercials.

What would truly be better for “We the People”… spending $150k of tax dollars on a candidate to keep the special interest money out, or let the special interest money buy and own our candidate, and thus, our government?

I’m not certain of all the pros/cons on this particular endeavor, but I believe it’s worthy of discussion.