The initial reaction to this suggestion would tend to be no due to potential conflicts of interest stemming from government interests in perpetuating government objectives. However, recent history has shown that the cross section of potential candidates for office tends to stem from a small group of affluent individuals forcing the public to choose amongst the lesser of two evils rather than from a broad cross section of qualified candidates. We are always forced to choose between candidates whom we feel are less than ideal however better than the alternative.
By having the government subsidize election campaigns, the possibility of promoting a broader cross section of the commonwealth thereby creating more options would be possible. Without strict regulations on election campaign funding however the potential for governmental favorites receiving all the support remains a real problem.
This trend has not been shown to differ from private funding sources in recent times. Typically, the favorites are supported financially removing any possibility for those who may actually choose to support the ideas of the popular opinion. Furthermore, the mass populace is prevented from knowing the actual opinions and perspectives of lesser known candidates largely due to a lack of exposure than any other circumstance.
Leadership trends typically tend to focus largely on lobbyist and special interest group perspective than any real issues involving social change. This is not to suggest that change is not possible or plausible. Special interest groups are typically made up from large cross sections of the public interest however those interests are colored by the objectives of the group and do not always represent the actual opinions of the majority of their constituents. This relegates the majority to having to choose between the lesser of two evils again so to speak.
The only real alternative that would enable the public to actually choose leadership most representative of their wishes is a broader cross section of choices. In addition, the current two party system tends to reflect a, "glass is half empty, half full scenario" with both sides representing the same glass and contents from alternative perspectives.
This is not indicative of any form of radical social change, rather, it is the perpetuation of the, "same old song and dance" with a new facilitator. "In society, the parameters never change, only the benefactors," this tends to present a very concerted effort to hoodwink the population into believing that if they just support the candidate aligned with the most congruent perspective consistent with their own, things will get better. In reality, things really will get better for the candidate, however, the remainder of the populace will merely experience the same old adages from past practice.
The practice of subsidizing election campaigns be it with private or public funding resources merely serves to create an obedient candidate to a monetary master. In this scenario, we are unlikely to ever really receive a candidate without objectives and priorities that remain focused on the wants and wishes of their financial master.
Perhaps, the suitable alternative requires all candidates to receive opportunities for conveying their perspectives without financial fetters governing the opportunity. This may necessitate an alternative means of conveying messages and slogans to the public however; it certainly does not involve the use of private or public funds for the purpose of persuasion.
In any case, election reform would most likely better serve a greater majority of the population. In order to accomplish this objective, the focus will need to be oriented towards ideals and away from financial objectives and priorities. In a country that can easily dump billions into foreign policy without completely eliminating problems within our own borders and affecting our own constituents, this is unlikely to become a reality in the near future.