This isn't one of those shows where I start off by asking questions and play down my own opinions. On today's topic --the issue of public financing of congressional elections-- I've got a strong opinion and I'm going to put it right on the table. Then I'll be happy to take on all comers. I say: the intrusion of private money into our campaign process deeply corrupts our supposedly democratic government. I say: election finance reform isn't just another issue, it is the core issue, more important for redeeming our politics than term limits, or reducing the size of government, or anything else I can think of. To those who think public financing of elections is somehow unjust and undemocratic, I would ask: Would you agree that the premise of our democracy is that each person is entitled to an equal role in the determination of the collective destiny of the nation? Would you agree that our sense of "justice for all" assumes that the poor person is as entitled to representation in the formulation of our laws as is the rich? If you agree with these premises, then another simple question exposes the injustice of the present, privately financed system: under this system, does a candidate with 1,000 wealthy supporters have an advantage over a candidate with 1,000 poor supporters? Of course, the answer is yes-- and that inevitably breeds unjust government. So long as Senators and Representatives need money to stay in office, the present system gives the candidates a big incentive to appeal to the rich, whose support can mean a lot, far more than to the poor, who can "only" vote. So long as the interests of those who have much are different from the interests of those who have little-- and inescapably they always will be-- the financing of our elections by private contributions inevitably corrupts our "representative democracy." For how can our system be representative if the voices our leaders harken to are not "representative" of the concerns of American society as a whole? I've heard congressmen defend the present system by saying that they get lots of $1,000 contributions from the "little people"! But how many people are there in the inner cities and in rural America who can express their support with a $1000 check? How many working families that are struggling to make ends meet can express even the most intense enthusiasm in such monetary terms? The freedom to write a check to one's favorite politician may be represented, through some creative interpretation by judicial activists of the right, as an extension of our first amendment rights to "freedom of speech." But it doesn't take any weird extrapolation to grasp that if our system enables the rich to translate their wealth into political power, it cannot be protecting the 14th Amendment rights of all our citizens to "equal protection under the laws." Can there be any doubt that money now buys power in our political system? Do you think these fat cats and big organizations (whether they be the tobocco lobby or the teachers' union or the chemical industry) are giving this money out of pure public spirit, out of altruism? Of course not: in exchange for the dollars without which public officials cannot get elected, the donors get at least access, and often also real influence and power. And even if that were not so, a disproportionate ability to determine which candidates will have the means to get into office --i.e. indispensable campaign money-- is itself political power. "One person, one vote" is what the democratic idea of justice declares. "One dollar, one vote" is corruption. Corruption is not just a matter of bribery and influence-peddling. Corruption includes anything that allows "Money talks" to displace the vox populi --the voice of the people-- in the affairs of our government. No task is more central to the justice of our society and the legitimacy of our laws than the protection of the democratic equality of political power. More than we should tolerate, the present system subverts what should be a democracy into a plutocracy-- that is government of the people, by the rich, and for the rich.