>Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? If the impression is that all candidates engage in this, voting results might not mean much here, especially if

>Do voters feel they have an actual choice here? If the impression is that all candidates engage in this, voting results might not mean much here, especially if direct opinion polling states there is interest in the topic. I agree. However, it's not about choice or whether or not certain candidates raise money. In the current system, all candidates, incumbent or not, spend a significant portion of their time and energy fundraising. Not because they're necessarily corrupt, but because if they don't, they can't compete with those who do. The problem is that our political system pretty much requires it unless you're extraordinarily wealthy. And even then, most will fund-raise anyway. The system we have incentivizes money over all else. Which is counterproductive and creates the avenues for prioritizing the well-heeled and wealthy special interests. Voters understand this, which is why most want to get the running sewer of filthy lucre out of our politics and elections. What is necessary is public funding of elections, with strict limits on spending and much more regulation of lobbying. Doing so would allow a much broader cross-section of folks to run for office and give those who are elected much more leeway in servicing their constituents. And that's, IMHO, what most Americans want.