<?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 - Fresh Eyes - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/07/07/fresh-eyes</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Fresh Eyes&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Fresh Eyes</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/07/07/fresh-eyes</link>
 <description>The decision on the Millionaire&amp;#39;s Amendment by the Supreme Court seems to have stirred up a little fresh debate on the subject of campaign finance, and public financing of elections.  From the editorial desk of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080707/OPINION04/807070310/1041/OPINION&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Rochester Democrat and Chronicle&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt; to the letters page of &lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080706/OPINION01/807060374/1008&quot;&gt;The Tennessean&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/em&gt;people are wondering just how pervasive the influence of money on campaigns is, and whether full public financing of campaigns is the solution.</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
