For the last six years Maine and Arizona have had an interesting concept: if a politician running for office promises to take only small amounts of money from individuals and corporations, then he/she will have his campaign funded by the government.

LAist, being Independent, loves this idea because it allows the so-called third parties a better chance at bringing about new solutions to government, and it gives them a better shot at actually winning elections over deep pocket candidates. And we're not alone, even Mayor Tony backs the initiative.

However businesses who want to keep their power in elections are against it, as are the LA Times, owned by the ginormouse conglomerate Tribune Corp., who feels that taxing businesses and banks to fund the "clean candidates" is wrong.

For a more indepth analysis, study the League of Women Voters' non-partisan analysis of this interesting way of funding elections.

Above is a clip from a show PBS aired tonight (h/t Buzzmachine) and after the jump are two very different spots supporting Prop 89. In the interest of fairness, if anyone can find a spot against Prop 89, please put the url in the comment section below. But despite several different attempts on YouTube we could not find an ad against "Clean Elections".

Yes on 89: