This sounds like an interesting proposal, but it seems rather convoluted ... and there's one serious questionI have: How do I, as an average voter, know who to contribute my $50 to? Presumably this raising and distributing of funds has to take place BEFORE the campaign season leading up to the election. How do I look at a list of names I haven't heard anything about yet and know who to earmark my contributions to? Doesn't that give the incumbent a tremendous advantage for funding, since his/her name will be far more recognized than any potential rivals?

One obvious solution would be to come up with some fact sheets to outline each potential candidate's views on various issues, perhaps give them a chance to make a statement or introduce themselves to the voters. But if we're going put that much effort into educating the public ... then why not save a massive step and just do that for the election itself, as we should probably be doing anyway?

I know this is an incredibly complex issue, and prying control out of the hands of those who control the money will be a difficult thing ... but I think I would much prefer more straightforward solutions that have been suggested, such as limiting the length of the campaign season or finding ways to ensure that all candidates get equal unbiased face time, and making sure that voters have easy access to a record of each candidate's positions on issues and voting records that are untainted by advertising or muckraking ...

This whole edifice smacks of elitist over-planning and has no basis in the real world. "Infusion of democracy?" as though the average man needs lessons in democracy!

One of the best aspects of representative democracy is that the voting public doesn't have to waste time on the intricacies of Washington politics. On occasion, when the screw-ups are particularly egregious, the public votes for change of direction.

I cant think of any ad that would've got me to pull the lever for Bush. So, to take a step back, all the money and corporate contributions in the world shouldn't influence my vote. The fact that it does, goes to show how few real ideas these two parties have to offer the average voter.

And as for corporate donations being somehow kept secret, err... wouldn't a canceled check be proof enough that the palm had, in fact, been sufficiently oiled?

I like the secret donations idea -- it's one we've discussed at home quite a bit as a great way to deny power to those who would like to purchase it.

A further refinement would allow only registered voters to make donations, and to restrict them to making donations only to the set of candidates for whom they are eligible to vote. As a voter in state X, I would not be allowed to contribute to a candidate in state Y. This prevents anyone outside a state from interfering in a state-specific race. It prevents a national party from "targeting" perceived vulnerable seats with out-of-state funds. This also avoids donations from corporations: "can't vote, can't have a say in the campaign."

Still further federal reforms I'd love to see: totally abolish any notion of seniority in Congress. Why should the voters of state X, who keep re-electing Senator Z (for whatever reasons they may have), have any more power in Congress as a consequence of Senator Z's seniority, than the voters of state Y, who vote in a fresh face more often (again, for whatever reasons they may have)?

I would also love to see, as an alternative to term limits, a simple prohibition on serving consecutive terms in office. "Come back as often as you like, but you can not campaign for an elected office while you hold one."

...the school that houses The Skull and Bones Society. Yale the school that has educated more corrupt candidates than any other. Thanks to Yale we have a Bush dynasty. Just exactly what more can Yale do to graduate politicians that care more for themselves than America. Yale that school of no morals. Yale's list of corrupt graduates is almost unbelievable.

Idaho only elects Republicans. It is the most Republican state in the US. Whoever wins the Republican primary will be elected. Out of state money is the primary source of campaign funds for candidates. So our Congressmen essentially vote for the benefit of the out-of-state interests. Any Republican who would be willing to go against the out-of-state interests will not win the primary, since he will be painted as a RINO or communist.

I don't see how the $50 system will change anything, unless the money could be used for primaries early on. We should probably limit campaign contributions to those who live in the candidates state.

it's certainly an intriguing plan, and i wish the topic of true election reform got more coverage in big media, but... HOW ARE WE GONNA PAY FOR IT? Another $6 billion? When we're already how many trillion in debt? Innovative idea, to be sure - but maybe not so much with the practicality.

I don't think any reform solves anything as long as the groups like MoveOn and SwiftBoat Vets are allowed to continue without limit.

These trash ads only serve to increase the enormously troubling numbers of disaffected Americans who refuse to vote because all they see is the negatives of every candidate.

I propose the only real solution is to make all political advertising ILLEGAL.

They would be replaced by more public debates required to be broadcast on all broadcast TV and radio channels, and no more of these mindless and unfairly influential 15-second ads.

Politics is serious business and allowing it to be treated as another product in the crass world of TV advertising completely devalues it and cannot be fixed.

Many countries, for example Chile, have a system like this and it is a success. It provides for a much less annoying electoral season with a much better intelligent debate/stupidity ratio for everyone involved.

Print and sign advertising may still be legal but television ads such as what we endlessly saw in 2004 threaten to destroy our democracy in addition to being incredibly infuriating and annoying to any intelligent person.