"The" answer? Maybe not, but it comes closer than anything else

I'm taking every opportunity I can find to plug public campaign financing, and making up opportuntities when I can't find them.  There is no magic bullet for what ails politics, but public financing comes far closer than anything else.  It's much closer to the root problem than is term limits, and much sturdier against legal challenge than limits on campaign contributions and advertising.

That last point was made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court in their January 21 decision.  Yes, the Supremes just opened the gate for more corporate and union money in politics, much more, and no, I am not making this up.  There are probably more rounds left in this fight, but I'm not seeing any through-path with a happy ending.  The only good thing about this decision is the way it might redirect attention to the strategy that can work: public financing.  I even think the Supremes did us at least one favor, and here is my exquisite reasoning.

Yes. polls say we don't want public financing.  (I always remember the claim of Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader and a Crown Prince of corporate contributions:  Americans have "already voted" against public financing by over 90%, he says, because fewer than 10% of us check the box on our tax returns to contribute $3 to the presidential election fund). Here's something else polls say: support for public financing grows rapidly as people learn more about  its workings.

SO I SHOUT FROM THE ROOFTOPS about the organization that's gathering the resources and support for public financing.  Please check out what they're doing.  If they -- we -- fail, grim times will  get grimmer.