A simpler campaign reform plan

I see two different reasons behind the decision of the Portland City Council to provide public financing of local campaigns.  One is its belief that the City should subsidize candidates who can raise a lot of small contributions, particularly against those funded by the Vested Interests.  (What does an interest have to do to be unvested, by the way?)  The other is its Puritanical belief that campaigns should not cost a lot of money, or put more simply that there’s something immoral about people spending more than a few hundred thousand dollars to get elected to the City Council.

I have no bright ideas at present relating to the first belief, but I’ve thought of one for the second belief — actually, I’ve stolen the idea from the State of Oregon.  We used to (as a state) be Puritanical about an assortment of vices, including alcohol, gambling, cigarettes, and the like, but now we cheerfully let them flourish, subject to heavy taxation.  Putting a share of the proceeds to a worthy cause removes the taint from their source, rather like a medieval baron using his ill-gotten gains to buy indulgences from the Church.

The City could do the same for local campaigns: it could tax candidates 50% of whatever the candidate raises above $300,000 or so, and send the taxes to the public schools.  The Francesconi campaign alone could have funded three teachers.