In the end, it might not matter if the Supreme Court doesn't allow us to ban paid political advertising in audiovisual media.  Not all politicians—and certainly not all candidates—are jaded ladies of the evening.  The ones with integrity might jump at a chance to shuck off their demeaning financial obligations in favor of a viable public-supported alternative, where they can reach large numbers of people saying what they actually believe.

They’ll probably also be quick to point out the difference between themselves and opponents who are still obligated to their donor “johns.”  Under these circumstances, although it may be only to avoid creating unfavorable appearances, even the most cynical established pols may find it advisable to jump ship from a dirty vessel onto one that’s perceived to be cleaner.

On a more positive note, what would it mean for our elected officials to no longer have to cater to wealthy special interests, or demean themselves by spending more time dialing for dollars than actually legislating, just to raise enough money to be heard by the electorate?

Imagine a world where candidates don’t have to say wild-eyed and irresponsible things just to get the media’s attention, so that the public can hear them. Picture the possibilities for improvement when new people with creative and useful ideas can join the conversation—even if they’re not billionaires.