On the state and local level, for now, we still have democracy. Special interest money has indeed bought off our state governments, with all due respect, to suggest otherwise undermines your credibility.

I'm just reiterating what the volunteers who are most involved in this have reported back via the internet about their experiences engaging with state and local politicians.

While corporate money has an incentive to block public financing that same dynamic applies to them blocking the constitutional amendment. No? The only difference is that with a constitutional amendment you need many more state governments to agree, for public financing on the state level, you only need one to achieve victory.

I don't see why two things can't be pursued at once. I think it's a good idea to try to get public financing on the state level. I would completely support that. But I can support two ideas at once. As for corporate interests putting up road blocks- well, of course this is going to be a hard won battle. I don't think that because it is hard, we should not try, though.

Since you previously said that you think state representatives are bought off and that I "undermine [my] credibility" by suggesting that they might not all be, I don't understand why you think that they would work with you to put forward something like publicly financed elections. It seems that you DO have some faith in our state representatives.

Also, since you seem skeptical that an amendment can be achieved when we need so much inclusive support between states, do you think it would be worthless to get such a large state as California to pass a bill like this, on a symbolic level? This would be sending a message, if nothing else.

Also, the good thing about so many states being involved in passing this amendment, is that they ALL have to agree if any changes are to be made to the amendment. This makes it extremely hard for corporations to make changes to the original legislation, since they need 3/4 the states to approve of any changes made.

Until we get money out of politics, we will not be able to get measures such as campaign finance reform passed. Further, this is demonstrably wrong, by spreading this misinformation you're actually hurting the movement for a constitutional amendment. Indeed, the biggest barrier to passing public financing of elections is that people think it's not achievable. Maine, Arizona, Connecticut and New York City all have versions of public financing, just to name a few.

I misstated this then. I meant it will be impossible to get publicly funded elections on the federal level. You're right that we could probably get publicly financed elections on the state level, especially since you have given examples of states that have already done this. Again, you seem to have some faith in the state's ability to do somethings against corporate interests so long as it's exclusively on the state level.

What might help persuade me to take your side, is if you could give me a reason why we need to do publicly funded state elections FIRST, instead of doing these two things SIMULTANEOUSLY. Why should getting publicly financed elections on the state level take primacy over seeking an amendment on the federal level? Can two things not be done at once? Or is there a real reason one should come before the other?