Matt Struhar, writing in Ohio State University's Lantern chimes in with support for public financing of campaigns in reaction to deficiencies he sees in the presidential primary process. The media focus on winners of the early primaries and the campaign donation bump the victorious candidates receive biases the results of later primaries, Struhar argues, and public financing would help level the playing field.Here are the ways he anticipates public financing altering the primary landscape:Under a system with complete public financing, however, candidates who perform weakly in the early primary states can continue their campaigns and give people more choices. Also, such a system would weaken the effect of media intrusion on the political process by eliminating the impact strong showings in the early primary states have on campaign donations. This would help show that there is, indeed, life after Iowa and New Hampshire. Furthermore, the media would no longer use campaign donations as a measuring stick for a candidate's viability. Each candidate would have equal resources to present his or her message, and campaign war chests - or lack thereof - would no longer impact people's perceptions of the race.Already candidates are dropping out after poor showings in the early primaries -- and citing a lack of funds as the reason. Those of us with later primaries (*cough* DC *cough*) might enjoy seeing a full complement of candidates go all the way.