I favor the all of the above (on market-based principles) approach. In addition, illegal immigrants also pose a significant risk to legal citizens/immigrants medical records due to the use of stolen SSNs and identities (see here, also, this has a bit of information on it, but I believe there was a more focused article on CIS, I will have to find again, when I have time). On a personal note, regarding that, I have a child with a chronic illness and drug allergies. If their medical record is corrupted and they are administered the wrong drug in an emergency situation, they are either going to suffer terribly or die.

Sure, if we wanted to kick every illegal immigrant out of the country, then that might help lower costs, or if we just fixed many other aspects of health care, then that would also lower costs and make insurance and care available to just about anybody who wants it, whether they are illegal or not.

Signs, pamphlets, 30 second media ads don’t mean a thing to an informed electorate.

While being in the minority may be disappointing, it usually doesn’t stop people (usually they fight harder). With the majority complacency can occur. However, I’ve heard far too many people (Republicans included) complain about their representative(s) to believe that they have no opinion. Unfortunately, nine times out of ten, the same people will still want to sit on their hands and want to be spoon fed information or sound bites. They tend to vote for the politician they chided because they saw their ad or flyer and it made them feel good.

What ever the excuse used, I don’t care to hear it from people. If they don’t want to fight but prefer to whine and sit it out, then they get exactly what they deserve and have asked for.

If you want representatives to be responsible to the people, the people need to be responsible to their duties. As stated, no amount of money and pretty ads will matter to an involved electorate. The reason money matters is because the representatives are being responsive to the electorate’s demands that they (voters) be allowed to shirk their duties as envisioned by the founders.

If candidates and contributors always find a way around contribution caps—then close the loopholes. In Utah in 2008 corporations, not voters contributed over 2.5 million to state legislative races.

Contribution caps do not cloak voter apathy, they force candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of individual contributors for the necessary funds instead of to one or two deep pocket individuals or corporations.

Out system is definitely NOT a level playing field. Incumbents who have positions of power in the legislature are a magnet for special interest group and corporate money since the lobbyists can get the most “bang for the buck” from those people when bills affecting their interests come before the committees.

The fact of the matter is that money buys signs, political ads in the media, professional campaign managers and staff and as a result also buys—VOTES.

There is no cause or effect relationship with voter complacency and campaign contributions. Voter apathy and complacency in Utah are the direct result of a one party system. The Democrats don’t vote since they know their candidate won’t be elected anyway. The Republicans don’t vote because they know their candidate will win even if they don’t.

Placing caps and restrictions on campaign contributions will force the candidates to be more responsible and accountable to, and representative of the electorate whom they are supposed to serve instead of the corporations and special interests as has always been the case.