Another larger issue is the general ability of corporations to act as "people".  There are two sides to this argument which I can relate to: one is that a corporation is just a collection of people, and the rights of the people to express themselves (1st amendment et al.) must not be infringed just because those people choose to act collectively.  But I feel more strongly that in practice, a corporation has its own agenda, in conflict with what its constituents would want as individuals.  The people may have a conscience but the corporation does not: the bottom line, the ability to profit, is the overriding agenda.  The clean elections fund, as flawed as it is, was supposed to provide an alternative to corporate-financed election campaigns.  I think a lot of evil has come from treating corporations as people.  If a person wants to support a particular candidate he is free to do so as an individual.  If he is the CEO of a corporation, he still retains his own personal free speech rights.  That does not relate to the idea that the corporation should be doing the speaking instead, because the corporation and the CEO of the corporation may easily have different views about the same issues and the same politicians.  But which has more power?  If the corporation has a political action fund, that money properly spent on lobbying or advertising is going to speak much louder than the CEO can personally speak.  But the trend in this country is that corporations are being treated as people, so we are increasingly controlled more by their profit motive than by matters of conscience.  That is a loss, just as much as excessive government power comes at the expense of the people's collective power as individuals thinking their own individual thoughts.  I think one is as bad as the other, in the end.  The government can coerce everyone to the extent that the law allows (and it's always changing), but a corporation has much more power to coerce its own employees (which can be a quite substantial number, effectively monopolizing all political power in certain communities), and additionally the corporation speaks with great amplification when there is a lot of money involved.
 
Another larger issue is the general ability of corporations to act as "people".  There are two sides to this argument which I can relate to: one is that a corporation is just a collection of people, and the rights of the people to express themselves (1st amendment et al.) must not be infringed just because those people choose to act collectively.  But I feel more strongly that in practice, a corporation has its own agenda, in conflict with what its constituents would want as individuals.  The people may have a conscience but the corporation does not: the bottom line, the ability to profit, is the overriding agenda.  The clean elections fund, as flawed as it is, was supposed to provide an alternative to corporate-financed election campaigns.  I think a lot of evil has come from treating corporations as people.  If a person wants to support a particular candidate he is free to do so as an individual.  If he is the CEO of a corporation, he still retains his own personal free speech rights.  That does not relate to the idea that the corporation should be doing the speaking instead, because the corporation and the CEO of the corporation may easily have different views about the same issues and the same politicians.  But which has more power?  If the corporation has a political action fund, that money properly spent on lobbying or advertising is going to speak much louder than the CEO can personally speak.  But the trend in this country is that corporations are being treated as people, so we are increasingly controlled more by their profit motive than by matters of conscience.  That is a loss, just as much as excessive government power comes at the expense of the people's collective power as individuals thinking their own individual thoughts.  I think one is as bad as the other, in the end.  The government can coerce everyone to the extent that the law allows (and it's always changing), but a corporation has much more power to coerce its own employees (which can be a quite substantial number, effectively monopolizing all political power in certain communities), and additionally the corporation speaks with great amplification when there is a lot of money involved.
   −
Yet another point is that political candidates' success hinges more on their contact with individual people than on money.  Maybe it's true to an extent but I still think that money talks.  It's very common for individuals to feel disenfranchised because their votes are such a small drop in the bucket.  It's also easy to manipulate voters when you spend enough money to convince them of things they would otherwise not believe.  Buz Mills' campaign is an example of just such an attempt.  It appears that ultimately it's not going to succeed - maybe for once someone has overestimated the stupidity of Americans, or maybe there are other reasons why Buz has dropped out of the race.  But for me this point has become the linchpin:  I will not vote for a politician who so openly tries to manipulate me into believing something patently ridiculous.
+
Yet another point is that political candidates' success hinges more on their contact with individual people than on money.  Maybe it's true to an extent but I still think that money talks.  It's very common for individuals to feel disenfranchised because their votes are such a small drop in the bucket.  It's also easy to manipulate voters when you spend enough money to convince them of things they would otherwise not believe.  Buz Mills' campaign is an example of just such an attempt.  It appears that ultimately it's not going to succeed - maybe for once someone has overestimated the stupidity of Americans, or maybe there are other reasons why Buz has dropped out of the race.  But for me this point has become the linchpin:  I will not vote for a politician who so openly tries to manipulate me in the way he has tried to do.
    
Now that the Supreme Court has [http://www.latimes.com/sc-dc-court-arizona-20100608,0,1293230.story blocked Arizona's Clean Elections fund] though (seems they consider it unconstitutional), I wonder what '''they''' think is supposed to happen to that money?!?  Wanna bet it won't be diverted to other random obligations?  By all rights it should be given back to those who made the contributions, or else given to a replacement, neutral campaign-finance organization.  I really doubt it will be though.  Everybody's corrupt.  It will be entertaining to see whether that develops into a scandal this time around or just gets swept under the rug.
 
Now that the Supreme Court has [http://www.latimes.com/sc-dc-court-arizona-20100608,0,1293230.story blocked Arizona's Clean Elections fund] though (seems they consider it unconstitutional), I wonder what '''they''' think is supposed to happen to that money?!?  Wanna bet it won't be diverted to other random obligations?  By all rights it should be given back to those who made the contributions, or else given to a replacement, neutral campaign-finance organization.  I really doubt it will be though.  Everybody's corrupt.  It will be entertaining to see whether that develops into a scandal this time around or just gets swept under the rug.
    
==Postscript about the gubernatorial race==
 
==Postscript about the gubernatorial race==
Exception encountered, of type "Error"