Publicly financed elections.

[Heywood]

Negative Chas,

Publicly financed campaigns favor incumbents because it restricts the ability of the challenger to overcome the incumbents name recognition advantage.

"Name recognition" is probably over-rated. All names will be out there equally in an equal-money campaign.

Negative Chas....name recognition is huge. If the republicans hold a senate seat the democrats can pour a tremendous amount of money on an unknown to chip away at the republicans name recognition advantage. However if campaigns are financed by the government only it entrenches the incumbent.

Suppose I am an incumbent and my challengers and I only get to spend $500,000 to get our messages out to the voters per election. In 2010 I spend $500,000 and my challenger Clyde spends $500,000. I win the election. In 2012 I spend another $500,000 and my challenger Rupert spends $500,000. I win again. Going into 2014 I already have spent $1,000,000 dollars getting my message out to the voters. When I run against Matilda, $1,500,000 will have been spent over 6 years on spreading my message while only $500,000 will be spent over 2 years spreading Matilda's message.

Publicly financed elections do not level the playing field.