[einpoklum]

I'm talking about a constitutional amendment to severely limit spending on elections, public funding for elections, non-exclusionary public debates, and perhaps Instant-runoff (ranked-choice) or other voting resolution mechanisms.

PS - Buckley v. Valeo made it clear that a regular weak-sauce bill wouldn't do.

[threatofrain]

I’m talking about which party has burned serious political opportunity for this issue at all. Alternatively we could say Obamacare is weak sauce and cannot do the trick for American health, but it’s also a reflection of a history of which party burned political opportunity in exchange for an issue.

That McCain’s legacy withered so soon after suggests the inadequacy of his reach, not that a vote for the GOP, which worked so tirelessly to filibuster McCain, is the same as a vote cast for Democrats. It was only until Enron and after his presidential run that McCain had the window to gain the bare minimum 60 votes to stop his own party from filibustering his bills to death.

And now we hear that the GOP are the same as the Democrats on campaign finance reform. Okay.