A candidate promises they will not accept donations over a certain amount, say $100, and asks all supporters to go online and put that amount on their credit card. Also, the party does the same thing, say $50 from each Democrat or Republican for the general election. In both cases, current laws that disclose campaign contributions would keep the candidates and parties honest. 50 million Democrats donating $50 each would be 2.5 billion dollars for the general election. I would think that would do the trick.

I participate in several funding mailing lists for the Democratic party; over a year's time, I may well give $300 to $600. This is obviously far less than the Shrub's millions but it is what I can afford.

Donations are treated as the unholy birthchild between 'the freedom of expression' and the 'right to petition the government'. Politicians spend money because money buys media exposure- the more exposure and recognition you can buy, and the greater share of the debate you can control, the more votes you will get. People give money because if they give enough to the right guy, and he is elected, he owes them a 'favor'. Much the same way maffiosos will compel a power-figure into collusion when they can't simply bribe him into it. As for groups, this goes back to our tragic judicial history of assigning personal rights to corporations- the root source of power and manipulation for the rich and influential.

- Election day should be a conditional holiday; you vote, you get a receipt from voting(an extra one for this purpose), you take the day off. You hand in your voting receipt with your timesheets and your boss MUST give you the day off.

- Contribution deadlines 1 week before elections, in an effort to force candidates to choose between spending on negative ads attacking their opponent, or positive ads conveying their own stances and ideas.

I see several problems inherent in the Ackerman-Ayres plan.

We can't be sure that our "directed" money actually gets to the candidate. Right now, we know for sure that our votes don't always get to the candidate we chose. It will be easier to hack the Diebold-like machines and FEC run databases than it will be to block a phone bank.

Much campaign contributions don't involve direct cash contributions. Face time is still a prime asset. Stars appearing on stage with the candidate, rich backers letting a candidate "borrow" their mansion or invite them to play golf, unions volunteering time for a phone bank, bloggers digging up facts (or spreading lies).

An "impossibly tense" $2000 a plate dinner is still worth a lot of money. The smoke-filled room of yore becomes the wink-and-a-nod handshake from fatcats. A politician always tells their audience what they want to hear, and not-quite-so-fatcats tend to do what their fatcat bosses tell them to. Cancelled checks are not a problem. I don't see how the dynamics will alter a great deal.

About 120 million people, and several million of those didn't decide until the last few weeks -- or the last few hours -- who they were going to vote for. (And what if they change their mind? Can they re-re-redirect funds?) The projections of $6 billion in funds is unrealistic.

And frightening. Where is $6 billion going to come from? Taxes? Even a scaled back projection of total funds seems like an escalation.

I'm all for actual democracy, not the barely-workable system we have now, but I'm afraid that we'll elect more conservative Hollywood types, ala Reagan or Schwartzenegger, with the established face and name recognition who sell their souls for power.

I'm glad Manjoo has raised the issue, but I'm afraid this is just another tweak in a system that, if it isn't broken, is seriously bent.

I don't know what to make of that plan. It sounds interesting enough that nobody'd seriously try it in DC.

My problem is always that money is taken as being synonymous with speech, the "money talks" principle of American politics, which seems to make campaign contributions a kind of above-board bribe, and gives the few on top with the most money to give way more voice than the rest of us.

I think there is political speech, and there is the spending of money, and it's dangerous to blend them, just as it's dangerous to conflate freedom and capitalism as the same thing. Liberty should not be on a sliding scale, based upon the ability to pay, although, in practice, that's exactly how it is.

Until "one dollar, one vote" is finally replaced by "one person, one vote" I don't think any reform is going to fix what's wrong in Washington.

When this campaign funding plan came out a few years ago it was summarily rejected by the main stream media. The MSM was just reporting the news, of course and not editorializing, of course. I am glad Mr. Manjoo decided to resurrect interest and discussion about the plan. Make no mistake, politics is business; politicians are businessmen. They don’t exist or serve without money; more money allows them to keep on serving and provide better service to those who gave the money.

Members of Congress have voted themselves a 60% increase in wages (adjusted for inflation) since the 1950’s. Not bad, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the money received from “private” donors. People with money to give and I mean the wealthiest 10% of our citizens, oppose any constraints on their giving. They oppose secrecy because they want the benefactor to know where that donation came from. The reasons should be obvious. The only people that more vigorously oppose change to campaign funding and lobbying are the benefactors, i.e. the politicians.

So, I have one key question. How many Americans don’t think that their elected official is serving their best interest? The answer of course, is that the vast majority of Americans feel disserved by their elected officials. Usually, less than half of eligible voters vote, largely because they don’t think their vote matters. Sadly, they are right. If that isn’t a wake up call for change, I don’t know what is. So, if you are interested in real change in how government is conducted and you want to elect people that will represent your best interests, then extensive campaign reform is a start! Though the Ackerman-Ayres plan deserves some consideration, I categorically reject most of the plan.

My approach is KISS – keep it simple stupid. Each registered and active (voted in the preceding election unless it is their first) voter automatically contributes X amount of dollars to an election slush fund in the tax year preceding the election. The slush fund will follow a formula for sub-dividing the fund into races for President, Senator and Representative. The election slush fund will divvy up the dollars equally to each candidate within each sub-category. The campaigning period will be limited to three months. Candidates will be permitted to declare their candidacy three months before the election, not before and not after. Declared candidates are eligible for campaign funds from the slush fund. For example, if 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 1 Libertarian declare they are running for President, then the pot is divided 21 ways. Primaries must be held the same day in every state and I would suggest candidates should have 45 days to make their case to primary voters. Lastly, the media must provide a minimum specified time (T.V. and radio) and equal space (print and internet) for all candidates for the purpose of substantive debates or information. I like the idea that each candidate must answer the same questions whether verbally or in writing. Beyond that the candidates may spend their allotted money to campaign and get their message out there as they see fit, though negative campaign ads would be prohibited. Keep in mind that campaign funding reform is only a start.

How many of you are willing to stand behind the kind of plan that will eliminate private campaign funding? Are you willing to pledge to not vote for any candidate that won't support the passage of campaign reform in their first legislative session? Are you willing to vote out of office any politician that will not support campaign funding reform? I understand why your answer will probably be no. At the same time, I also understand why there won't be any change to the way politicians do "the people's" business. Bottom line is that you or I will never get representation unless we have the votes or the money to demand it. So far, it is a lot easier to get the money than the votes. We prove that every election.