Hans A. von Spakovsky:
"There was no good reason for starting this program in the first place. Voters contribute to the candidates they think are best fit for office. If a candidate cannot raise the money needed to run, it’s the market speaking — a sure sign that too few voters feel he has the character or policy views needed to represent them fairly."
Public Citizen:
As we look towards what is sure to be an even larger assault by special interests' outside money in the next presidential race, it is clear that the presidential public financing system, which has served the country well for most of its existence, needs to be repaired, not repealed."
Brad Smith:
"Proponents of tax-financed campaigns often make the assertion that the presidential system has "served the nation well," but they rarely attempt to support that assertion. Is there any evidence that it has led to better campaigns? Is there any evidence that it has led to better governance? Are the presidents elected through tax-funded campaigns (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush) really a more impressive lot than those elected with voluntary campaign contributions (e.g. Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Coolidge)? Do supporters of President Obama, who opted out of the system of tax funded campaigns, really believe that he is now more "corrupt" for having done so?
In recent elections, the most prominent candidates have all opted out of the system for the party primaries."
