-It's unconstitutional and limits free speech.
-It's impractical, since it ignores soft money.
-It's not inclusive, generally limiting the subsidies to those in major political parties.
-It restricts competition between candidates (as previous efforts to "reform" the electoral process)-- and from smaller political parties.
-It redistributes money from taxpayers to the two major political parties.
-It's unpopular, given the current participation in voluntary funding through the 1040.
Other than that, it is a GREAT proposal!
From James Carroll in the C-J on Rep. John Yarmuth's proposal to drastically limit AND dramatically subsidize campaign contributions by individuals.
Imagine a campaign for the U.S. House in which the definition of a fat-cat donor is somebody who gives the maximum — of $100. Imagine that same race, but with the federal government providing a 5-to-1 match for every dollar a candidate raises from state residents. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-3rd District, not only can imagine it, he’s sponsoring legislation that would make it law.
Under Yarmuth’s bill, candidates who voluntarily participate in a public financing system would qualify by raising $50,000 in donations of $5 to $100 each. Those contributions would have to come from at least 1,500 donors living in the candidate’s state. After qualifying, each candidate would receive a lump-sum grant, calculated as the average amount that winning candidates spent in the two previous elections. Yarmuth’s measure also would provide $5 for every $1 dollar raised in-state, up to three times a candidate’s original grant amount.
Why those arbitrary dollar and donor numbers? Because Yarmuth doesn't want competition from anyone other than the major political parties.