<?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 - Fair Elections Now Act - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog-tags/fair-elections-now-act</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Fair Elections Now Act&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Glenn Fernandez</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/11/06/change-essential-as-dollars-drive-election-returns#comment-28050</link>
 <description>k598a4tak3i6z07b
</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:02:34 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>I agree that campaign</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/11/06/change-essential-as-dollars-drive-election-returns#comment-28023</link>
 <description>I agree that campaign finance needs reform, but to think that Obama won solely because he was well funded  seems over simplistic.

He&#039;s eloquent, dignified, and carried an optimistic message.  People were looking for that image.  

Sure, there are more important things, but good marketing doesn&#039;t rely soley on dollars.
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Cleaner</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/11/16/candidate-donations-from-special-interests-up#comment-24714</link>
 <description>I agree as I do think that mandatory public financing would certainly make things a whole lot &quot;cleaner&quot;.</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:38:02 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>clearing up the water</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/11/16/candidate-donations-from-special-interests-up#comment-24217</link>
 <description>I really love that Obama &quot;muddy water&quot; metaphor. I really think mandatory public financing would go a long way toward cleaning things up - along with full transparency. These interests want to spend money to influence so where will it go?  More ad campaigns?  
----
Support The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.melaleuca.org&quot;&gt;Melaleuca Foundation&lt;/a&gt; - Enhancing Lives, Restoring Hope.</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Mr. Brand is right -</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/08/24/make-it-happen#comment-19377</link>
 <description>Mr. Brand is right - everthing is political and money affects our whole political system; thereby everything in our lives.  One point that I think gets lost in most discussions of clean money campaigns is:  it will probably mean no new taxes.  Publicly-funded campaigns will cost us, the taxpayers, less than lobbiest-funded campaigns because after the campaigning ALL of our taxes will go for OUR benefit.  There will be no sweet deals, no-bid contracts, $500 hammers, or pay-offs.  Our taxes will be give us more bang for the buck, because there will be no one else our representatives will be answering to.</description>
 <pubDate>Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:54:22 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Ilinois Clean Election Act - HB 1640</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/03/30/letter-rip#comment-13654</link>
 <description>Dear Katie,

Are you aware of HB 1640 submitted by State Representative Mike Boland on 2-22-07.

It is modeled after Maine&#039;s successful legislation.

Larry Quick
Director, Quick &#039;N Clean Foundation
www.qnc.us
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:16:17 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Clean Elections</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/03/23/restoring-the-temple#comment-13088</link>
 <description>  Although I lean towards the conservative side of things I still believe in right and wrong. I don&#039;t believe in utilities gouging any more than in gas gouging. It is high time we get congressmen and women to address this problem. Politics have always been given a bad rap due to a few in the system who believe themselves above the law. We need to blow the whistle on these people and take back the America as it was meant to be. With life and liberty for all.</description>
 <pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Yes, thanks for heads up</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/03/21/fair-elections-now-act-online#comment-13046</link>
 <description>It looks like the texts have not made it online yet - but they should be there in the next few days.  I&#039;ll update when they are.</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 19:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Seed money from PACs</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/03/21/weighing-in-on-fair-elections#comment-13044</link>
 <description>Under the FENA can candidates who want to qualify as &quot;Fair Elections&quot; candidates accept contributions from PACs or not? The below text from page one of publicampaign.org says no. But a breakdown on page two indicates that they WOULD be able to accept up to $100 from PACs. What&#039;s the deal?

Before declaring an intent to run and qualifying as a &quot;Fair Elections&quot; candidate, a U.S. Senate candidate may solicit, accept, and spend seed money contributions of up to $100 from individual contributors (but not from PACs or other special interests) living in any state.</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:48:33 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Links to the bills are</title>
 <link>http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/03/21/fair-elections-now-act-online#comment-13042</link>
 <description>Links to the bills are broken.</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
