1. No doubt a lot of cash can be a corrupting influence but so can a lot of anything. For example, a fundamentalist church backs a candidate, gives no cash but provides an army of volunteers “free of charge.” Some would say that’s just an exercise in democracy. Others would say there’s a quid pro quo whether it’s money or bodies.

2. When you ask some legislators in states that have public financing if it has lessened the influence of special interests, the answer is a qualified no. In other words, lobbyists who are paid to hang out at the capitol all day will have more access, influence, etc., than Joe Citizen who shows up to testify on a bill and goes home.

Indeed, some special interests claim that public financing is a good thing because it saves them money while still giving them influence.

What is has done is change the face of campaigning more than it changed the face of lobbying, in my opinion.

3. As far as collecting $5 or $10 donations from the community, there’s nothing to stop a labor union or political party or organization to mail their membership to send in the required donation to a candidate.

The notion that the candidate will slog door-to-door winning the hearts and minds of voters to the point that a hundred (or whatever the number ends up being) citizens will fork over a check could happen but I’m not holding my breath.

4. The hard right does have a point when they say they don’t want public dollars to support candidates that have views contrary to theirs. It’s a point; not a deal breaker.

5. There’s no doubt if the entire system were publicly financed, it would be a pretty penny. Not a reason not to do it, but to say that those who are concerned about the ultimate cost are just sellouts, afraid, etc., is a bit overwrought.

6. Lastly, review public opinion polls of legislatures or governors that have adopted public financing. My hunch is that the public’s view of politicians hasn’t diametrically changed because the influence of money is lessened.

Oh, let me make a final point. If you review the contributions of candidates at the county or legislative level, you don’t find “moneyed interests from chemical companies and mainland real estate interests” as much as you’ll find the typical ones from local banks, local unions, well-to-do donors, local corporations, family and friends, etc.

And very, very few candidates ever receive the maximum allowable by law. No doubt some are influenced in their votes with a $100 donation but it’s doubtful it’s the tipping point for most.

1. Turnaround time on qualifying contributions

2. “Interest Groups” point — which is out of the blue, by the way, and you’re putting words in my mouth.

1. The current bill from which you (and the CSC) are deriving your arguments is not the proposed bill. Hawaii County has revised language for the bill. In that bill, the turnaround time is exteded from 5 days to 14 days I belive. When we were redrafting the text, we realized this turnaround time was a little too quick.
If the CSC was more willing to work proactively with us, they would know this. I”m assuming the CSC is where you’re getting your information, by the way.

2. Your quote: “Kory thinks it’s irresponsible to suggest that interest groups will find ways to throw their support behind favored candidates …” I have no idea where you’re getting this quote.
This whole debate is like a pinball randomly going around from random point to random point. Probably why I stay away from blogs for the most part.

In response to this “#2.” point, I have two points:

A. The term “interst group” is a loaded term, and to start making sweeping statements like you did makes it impossible to debate, just like the money argument earlier: it would take a dissertaion to tackle. It’s like using the word “beurocracy” or “political” These terms mean so many things to so many different people, that it’s rediculous to infuse the primary line of a debate with them.

B. Anyway, to your point that you created a quote for me on: Yes, grassroots groups will influence the qualifying process for candidates. But remember, the qualifying contributions must come from within the district. That’s the thing here. Instead of candidates networking an old network of moneyed interests from chemical companies and mainland real estate interests, for example, instead, the candidates remain in their own districts, meet people in their own districts, fundraise their qulifying constriubtions from constituents and yes, networks, in their own distrcits. And ultimately, instead of spending 60% of their taxpayer-funded time on fundraising from private intests, they instead spend that time focusing on solving problems that lie within their own districts.

I’m halfway expecting that after I submit this, there will be 2 or 3 more random points that are going to come out of left field, and consequently, I cannot justify spending too much more time running around in the outfield of this blog trying to catch these baseballs and throw them back at you.