<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="0.92" xml:base="http://www.publicampaign.org">
<channel>
 <title>Public Campaign - Full Public Financing in the Age of the Roberts Supreme Court - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/node/40409</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Full Public Financing in the Age of the Roberts Supreme Court&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Full Public Financing in the Age of the Roberts Supreme Court</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/node/40409</link>
 <description>In the wake of the recent complex decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (&lt;em&gt;FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), &lt;/em&gt;June 25, 2007) to weaken the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), advocates of Clean Elections campaign reform may be wondering how the ruling affects the policy that is the law in Arizona, Maine, and five other states and two cities. The good news, according to a number of expert legal analyses, is that full public financing systems not only remain intact-they become the most effective option likely to withstand legal challenges.  &lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:56:53 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
