Public financing of Congressional elections?

Whatever happened to it after Democrats regained Congress?

Oh, it likely went down the earmark rabbit hole.

And, it’s interesting, or hypocritical, that Barack Obama says he would force Congress to cut any earmark-laden bill it sends him next year, in light of:

Anti-pork watchdogs, for example, point to the $1.8 million in five earmarks for Chicago's Shedd Aquarium, which ran $8 million in the black last year and has embarked on a four-year, $100 million fundraising campaign. With that kind of money, why should taxpayers fund a $400,000 program earmarked by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to help the aquarium conduct a program aimed at preventing juvenile delinquency, watchdog groups ask.

Somehow, I doubt that particular item would be on President Obama’s chopping block.

As for Schmuck Talk Express™, there’s plenty of ways of bringing home Congressional bacon without earmarks. All you have to do is defend old, entrenched federal largesse. Out West, that means, below-market grazing fees on federal land, below-market water rates from federally-impounded lakes and below-market hydroelectricity rates. It’s called Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam.

There’s two ways to really reform Congress.

One is to pass a public campaign finance bill.

With one HUGE caveat. It has to include reasonable provisions for financing third-party campaigns. (Fat chance of that actually happening, though.)

The second is to amend the Constitution to put House members on a four-year election cycle.