What's to stop the FEC from itself being corrupt and directing money to whoever they want? If the candidate can't tell whether your money made it to their bank account, how can you? Is there an analogue to the paper ballot in the secret ballot system for voting?

I have read that anonymous Corperate donors felt extorted by Tom Delay's fundraising efforts. However the problem with any campaign reform that focuses only on money is that it really only changes the scale and the balance of Television ads.At the end of the day we will still have a campaign that is fought on television in terms set by the candidates and the parties, rather than by the voters. We need to describe a voter-centric system, and legislate to encourage that ideal. My suggesstions are to forbid Broadcast/cable/Satellite stations to sell Political ads, to restore the fairness doctrine and to return controll of the Presidential debates to the non-partisan League of Women Voters. No more endless negotiations, if the Candidates don't want to debate by the people's rules then they should take their ball and go home.

Broadcasters have shown ads that smeared John Kerry, while

refusing Ads by the Church of Christ for being too controversially tolerant. If they could not sell the air time for these ads I am certain they would run neither, or the fairness doctrine would impell them to run them and their adversary's ads both once for free. Either way the the contest would move to a new venue.

This would be a reasonable idea if the system that takes the "money votes" of the electorate was perfectly reliable. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and, in the real world, such a system can be manipulated. The secrecy of the system makes it an obvious target for unscrupulous government insiders or hackers to either game the system by modifying how the funds are distributed to the candidates or just steal the money outright. The most likely result would be that we'd end up with a government run by organized crime syndicates. Some might argue that our government already is a kleptocracy, but it seems to me that this idea, if implemented, would make corruption even more prevalent.

A better system has been working in Australia for decades. Each party receives a cash grant after the election of about $US2 per vote to recover the costs of campaigning. The Australian method is simple and easy. Why complicate things by giving citizens a monetary vote of US50 and a candidate vote, just allocate the $50 according to the final poll numbers.

As mentioned before, most of the money spent by campaigns goes to advertising, with a big chunk of that going to radio and television ads. Most of these ads seem to be more on attacking the opponents, and not on the issues. Currently, when a campaign buys ad time, it is charged the lowest rate of that time slot; if the rates range from say $1000/spot to $3000/spot during a given hour, the campaigns are charged the lesser amount for the entire period. My solution would be free advertising, with a catch. Each candidate - local, state, or national, would get 4 free 30 second spots per hour, as long as the spot focused on the issues or that candidate themselves. Additional spots in that hour would be charged at the prevailing rate for that time slot. Run a negative ad, and you would pay top dollar rate for the entire day, not just the time period the spot runs in. Any negative ad, either sponsored by a candidate or a "Swift Boat" type group would be charged top dollar. Run 'em if you want, but you'll pay dearly for them. I think that faced with having to spend more money for a negative ad, most campaigns would drop those in favor of a cheaper one that actually does the voter some good. And it's not about limiting free speech; say what you want, you just may have to pay more for how you say it.

What's to keep the half of our population that could care less about an election from selling their $50 voucher to the unscrupulous politician? If I pay someone $40 for their $50 voucher, that's a pretty good return for my candidate.

Spending $6 billion so we can still have BIG campaigns doesn't make sense when the

big cost of them is television advertising!

The airways BELONG TO THE PUBLIC, so why should the public have to PAY to use them for such an essential public purpose!!

I am glad that someone is giving some attention to this issue.

I am intrigued by the $50 donations idea but I am unsure how it could be implemented.

If the government sends people a check for $50 and the donations are secret, what will keep most people from simply putting the $50 in their wallet? If on the other hand I have to tell the government where to send the $50, whither goest the secrecy? Lots of computer hacking issues, etc. Perhaps the $50 donations are some kind of paper voucher, which you then physically give to a registered candidate?

This idea alone is insufficient. We would also need:

Free airtime for candidates of every party. Most people do not study the issues, but they are bathed in ads. They will send their $50 voucher to a name they already recognize. People who already have access to the media megaphone have a huge advantage. Incumbents would probably get the lion's share of the vouchers, only adding to their power. Giving free airtime to everyone reduces the principle campaign expense, and gives some minimum level of access to the smallest players.

Shortened campaign season. 6 weeks of primaries. 6 weeks of finals. 12 (publicly funded) televised debates. Then vote. Reduce the nonsensical and lobotomizing campaign trail coverage that currently passes for "news". Force clear elucidation of ideas.

Parity campaign funds for all federal races. If in a given race Candidate A raises $100 million, and Candidate B raises only $40 million, Candidate B will receive additional $60 million in public money to give campaigns parity. This reduces the scramble for big donations, since no matter how much you raise, you will be evenly matched with the other candidates. Let the best ideas win. Not the best funded ideas.

Continue current laws requiring disclosure of private donations.

Discard the archaic electoral college system. I am from Montana, but I still feel that my Senators give our otherwise underrepresented rural population plenty of clout. Nobody seriously campaigns in Montana.

Outlaw donations (both directly to candidates and indirectly to parties) by non-voter actors. Unions, corporations, professional associations and lobbying groups may petition their congressman, but they should not own congressmen.

Include a binding "none of the above" choice on every ballot. If 33% of the voters choose "none of the above", wipe the slate clean and start the election season over again with new candidates.

These ideas, taken in total, are so radical that it would probably require a constitutional amendment. That is a subject for another day.