There is an organization here in California that I volunteer with called TakeBackCa.org that has a simpler, and I believe superior, initiative on the ballot this Fall.
Basically, you opt into the system, as you do currently. Once you're there, you have spending limits, just like now. But in this version, if your opponent (no matter who he or she is) opts out and spends above your limit, then your limit is automatically raised. There are a couple ladder rungs like this, then eventually there is a cap to keep the public from going bankrupt, after which you are released from the system to raise whatever money you want.
In other words, there is no competitive disadvantage from participating. I (obviously) am really pulling for this to happen in California, but it would be terrific on a federal level as well.
The proposal you cite sounds good -- and it has the added advantage of actually being a ballot initiative rather than just a good idea.
But it would be best someday for officeholders to be banned altogether from accepting bribes in the form of campaign contributions.
That's definitely a great point, it gets right to the bottom line, and I whole-heartedly agree with it. However, until the Supreme Court realizes that voting is the constitutionally appropriate way for citizens to speek in government, money will continue to be protected speech. And just think, Roberts is only 51, so we've probably got another 30 years of doctrinaire right wing ideology on issues like this to endure from him.
I loved this idea the first time I heard it but the chances it would ever become law are about a 1 million to one, unfortunately.
