As a result of previous movements that fought for those things--they didn't just happen spontaneously once the "money was out of government." And while they started from a higher level of social services, the European countries are currently facing attacks that are just as sharp if not sharper than ours, and the public funding of elections isn't doing anything to stop that.
One other problem with this argument is that money influences politics in other ways than through donations. The media is hugely influential, and it's owned by the 1%. Are you going to get money out of the media, too, by making it publicly financed? Then there's the fact that it's virtually impossible to get into political office without a college degree, which is harder to get if you're poor. So you need free public education up through grad school in order to eliminate the influence of money through that avenue. There's also the fact that every member of the Senate is a millionaire, so they all have personal interests to protect. And they move in the same circles, go to the same social events, and are friends with the super-rich. They are constantly hobnobbing with each other, while ordinary people have no access to them at all. Are you going to make it illegal for the politicians and the super-rich to see each other socially? And this is only scratching the surface of the many, many ways that money influences politics. You can't eliminate them all short of a revolution, so if you want to win a jobs program, foreclosure moratorium, and taxes on the rich, you're going to have to fight for them. Just making elections publicly funded is not going to get it done.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:34 AM, kindofblue <email@example.com>
"they still have the same economic inequality and problems we do."No they don't. They have significantly less income inequality, much
better healthcare systems, and generally have better environmental