Flight of Fancy

I would love to hear your arguments in favor of voter owned elections (I love that phrase....just how many people in the U.S. actually knows what that means, really?

To me...and my libertarian side is coming out here....it would mean just more government involvement and would therefor mean more taxpayer money going into something that the private sector can handle. Now, I am sure that "graft and corruption" and every other 'crooked' word you can dream can be shown as to why the past way we fund elections is bad. But, when you can show me how the government hasn't been eat up with "graft and corruption" throughout our country's history...I'll wait for that to be shown. It would change nothing except to cost taxpayers and cause there to be problem after problem that one candidate or political party got more than some other candidate or political party.

It's just not a good idea...and anyone with half a brain knows it if for no other reason than to realize that government does a horrid job of administrating almost everything it is involved in and seldom does a good job of governing themselves.

When restrictions are imposed by government on what citizens can say and how they can say it prior to an election, that's undemocratic, unamerican, and wrong. When government takes my money and gives it to candidates to espouse views with which I disagree, that is equally undemocratic, unamerican, and wrong. The term "voter owned elections" is a term of art designed to fool the gullible into accepting more government control over the political process.