I have a possible solution that some people wouldn't want to hear, that would make it a LITTLE less corrupt of a process.
This is 2010, right?
Money shouldn't have anything to do with Campaigns.
Candidates should get equal face-time on a public access channel, a 10-minute bio, perhaps, we'll iron out the details later.......................and a few debates.
No bought and paid for publicity, or travelling for speaches, etc.
Just that public access channel. That's all.
I couldn't agree to this because it would be an infringement on free speech and also make it impossible for a relative unknown but competent contender to compete with the well known candidate. The unknown has to have the means to get his name out there and those of us who want that well-known candidate defeated and gone should be able to participate in that process.
Far better to put the restraints on them after they are elected, and I think that would automatically rein in a lot of campaign excesses. There wouldn't be much use in funneling a gazillion dollars to a candidate if that candidate was prohibited by law from paying you off later.
It's actually perfect for the unknown. They get to be seen as much as the guy with 6 bagillion dollars.
In other words, your money doesn't get to determine your advertising thus determine your name recognition thus determine your election..............and average uncorruptible Joe Schmoe suddenly has a chance to do the un-thinkable: a non-rich candidate!
But the guy with a bazillion dollars is already well known, more especially if he is an incumbant. His name is a household word. All he has to do is keep his smiling mug out there and he's gonna be elected because most of the electorate doesn't know the other guy and most people will not vote for the unknown.
So what objection do you have to controlling runaway campaign money by simply making it impossible for a candidate to benefit contributors after the election?