SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS and let the Reps know it's "one man, one vote", NOT "one dollar, one vote".
George Will - "Beware when the political class preens about protecting us from “special interests.” The most powerful, persistent and anti-constitutional interest is the political class."
GEORGE WILL: In disclose act, a free speech clamp » Standard-Times
The Supreme Court has blocked implementation of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act. Under it, candidates who accept taxpayer funding of their campaigns receive extra infusions of tax dollars to match funds raised by competitors who choose to rely on voluntary contributions. The law punishes people who do not take taxpayer funds. Its purpose, which the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional, is to restrict spending — and the dissemination of speech that spending enables — to equalize candidates’ financial assets. This favors incumbents, who have the myriad advantages of office. And it is patently intended to cripple candidates funded by voluntary contributions: Who wants to give to a candidate when the donation will trigger a nearly dollar-for-dollar gift to the candidate — or candidates — the contributor opposes? Just as the new health care legislation is a step toward elimination, by slow strangulation, of private health insurance and establishment of government as the “single payer,” laws like Arizona’s are steps toward total public financing of campaigns — government monopolizing funding for campaigns that determine the control of government.
Public financing simply gives a different person the advantage, mainly the incumbent over any challengers. As for congressional "insider trading", it should rightly be outlawed; those seeking federal office should be required to deposit any personal funds into a blind trust or at least not be allowed to own individual stocks. That's just common sense.
The incumbent already has more of an advantage in the current system than they'd have under public financing. Sure they'd still have the visibility of the office but, they'd only have as much money to play with as their opponent and wouldn't have access to people willing to give money to anyone in power, regardless of ideology, rather than a "maybe" down the road.