My dad said this as an off-hand comment a long time ago and the more I think about the more it makes sense.

Forget about limiting the amount of money a politician can raise. Limit where they can get it from.

Make the law so a politician can only raise money from their district or constituents. In other words, a representative can only raise money in their home district, a Senator in their home state and Presidential candidates are the only ones allowed to raise money nation wide.

Such a reform would force politicians to actually listen to their constituents for change. No more Hilary getting a big chunk of her campaign financing from Hollywood. No more Don Young getting his money from gulf coast oil companies.

Politicians would be forced to send time in their home districts to raise money rather than flying off to Ireland or Florida.

I actually think this could past constitutional muster. Just like we don’t allow foreign contributions to campaigns saying people who live outside the district shouldn’t be allowed to influence my Senator with cash. It’s also completely fair. Everybody has one representative and two Senators they can contribute too as much as they want.

For those reason alone it will never happen.

I wouldn't expect much apart from a few cosmetic changes, along with a measure or two that disproportionately affects Democrats just to get them to holler about it so they can be accused by the Republicans of being against ethics reform. That's the way things are run with this particular crop of Republicans.

I remember when the Republicans were the crusaders against Democratic corruption. It really wasn't that long ago, but people's memories are short in George W. Bush's America, and I don't think too many people even remember who Newt Gingrich was. But that's nothing. What really incredible is that what took Democrats 40 years to achieve took the GOP only five. Will people take appropriate notice and throw the bums out? Maybe, but it'll take awhile. I just hope it doesn't take 40 years.

In Arianna's book "How to Overthrow the Government", she put forth the idea that there should be a public clearing-house for political donations. Any citizen could make a donation of any amount to this government agent, who would pass the donation through to the candidate or party anonymously. The strenght of this is it allows anyone to give any amount, but have no proof about who the donation was to, thus removing the corrupting influence of direct giving. Also, if the money was accepted by the agency it is automatically a legal gift, so political candidates wouldnt be induced, months or years later, to give money back from tainted givers.

is a good scrubbing. Too many career politicians, making too many decisions, based not on what is good for the country, but what is good for their careers. There is only one way to solve this problem and it is a simple one. We just throw the rascals out. What we have now is nothing more than a collection of theives, cheats, and liars of every stripe. I'll say it again: Throw the rascals out!

Anyone with web access can learn about any issue. Check the comments section on many blogs, and you will see that people gather enough information to have a reasonable position on most anything. Yesterday, I was wondering about the rate of graduation from high school in Tennessee, and a couple of clicks later, I found a site with an answer and an explanation of how it was calculated.

I suggest that any meeting of any kind with a registered lobbyist be attended by a staffer whose job it is to take notes and post them to the web perhaps in a blog. If the purpose was to inform the congressperson of some fact, this will allow those who disagree with the factual statement to post different, perhaps better, information. If the purpose was to convey the position of an entity, other people can state their positions. If there was some other purpose, people can point that out, and take it into account when voting.

Why do people even begin to care, or care to notice? From the patronage system to Tweed to the military-industrial complex, America has been dominated by financial and political interests. Not that I want this to be an overtly cynical tirade on the state of America, but big deal. You wake you, you work, and you vote for someone with alterior motives that are what is best for him, not what is best for you. The big fish eat the little ones and don't expect that to change.

I have always been amazed how a last minute rider, that has nothing to do with the scope of the original bill, can be attached without anyone knowing. I would like to see legislation that will place a cut off on when a bill can be added to. Then that final version of the bill should go through committee. If changes to the scope of the bill are made, then the bill should be redistributed to the lawmakers for review. Then, and only then, should it be voted on. These last minute pork-barrel additions should be stopped, they are killing our economy.

Part of the problem is the escalating cost of running a campaign in this country. Even the most wide-eyed, public-interest-minded newbie politician (is there such a thing?) must schill for an obscene mount of money to mount a campaign. And the day after they arrive in their state capitol or DC, they have to start drumming up cash all over again. Is there any wonder they respond to the siren call of lobbyists?

Here in the Northeast, we see the fruits of this arms-race style of campaign funding: millionaire politicians buying their way to electoral victory (Bloomberg and Corzine).

How about a modest proposal to put a cap on the total amount that can be spent on a campaign? Let's decide that a gubernatorial election in, say, New Jersey, should cost $8 million dollars. Put in an inflation-adjustment clause, and that's it. That's what it'll cost, forever. Once a candidate reaches that level of fundraising, he or she will have to stop. This may even have the added benefit of limiting the blitz of advertising that precedes election day and encourage more judicious spending (well, I can hope).

I realize this doesn't deal with the advertising by supposed "grass-roots" issues groups that also pop up during election time. But if we don't try to limit what they can spend, we have little hope of limiting what they take in. As long as the other guy can raise the ante, the costs will keep going up, and the business of electoral tit for tat will continue.