OK, here's my campaign funding plan: (4 simple rules)

[trof]

1. Only U.S. citizens who are registered voters may contribute to U.S. political campaigns.
No citizens of foreign countries allowed.

2. No contributions from non-constituents.
If it's a presidential campaign, all U.S. registered voters could contribute.
In senate and other state-wide campaigns, only voters from that state could give.
In house campaigns, only voters from the district could give.
In county or city elections, only citizens of the particular locale (who are registered to vote!) could support candidates.

3. Only individuals may contribute.
No corporations nor unions nor PACs nor lobbyists nor trade groups nor any kind of organization consisting of more than one individual can contribute.

4. There is no limit to the dollar amount, or in-kind donation of each contribution.
So...what's to prevent a wealthy individual from writing a check for $100,000 and/or providing free transportation on the company jet?

I'll deal with the "in-kind" first. Can't be on the company jet. See Rule 3.
Have to be an individually owned aircraft. Believe me, there ain't many of those.

OK, so still...what's to keep a rich guy from buying an election?
Nothing, except the donor and donee better be ready to explain to the media and the citizens exactly why they're trying to buy an election. There's a quid pro quo somewhere.

OK, I'm ready for this to be picked apart.
And I already understand that it's only a pipe dream.
;-)

[LordMortis]

1. It's a nice dream.

This is quite interesting. However, rich people own the media, so they wouldn't be picked apart if they bought the election. Also, what's to prevent a corporation giving to an election through an intermediary?

[newyawker99]

9. Hi LordMortis!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[many a good man]

2. Only one rule is needed:

BAN television campaign advertising.

80% of campaign war chests go to buying air time and producing those idiotic ads. They are the sole reason candidates need to raise such enormous funds. It forces them to suck up to corporations and the wealthy because without it they wouldn't stand a chance in any federal level election. What's even more disgusting is that corporate monopolists and beltway insiders make all the profit off it.

Without television campaign advertising politicians will be forced to seek an alternative venue for getting out their message. It will force them to compel the broadcast media to give them air time for free (which is their right) where they can engage in real debates and air Perot-like campaign infomercials. Lacking their 30-second dollops of pablum, American voters just might make the extra effort to find out what politics is really about.

[RC]

4. So many people don't read...

They get all their news and information from television. If the candidates cannot have campaign ads on tv, a good majority of the populace will never know who is running.

[many a good man]

6. Will never know

Tell me with a straight face that voters can really know who's running by watching political TV ads. The majority already DON'T vote.

You can't pick a politician like you would a brand of toothpaste based on TV commercials.

This measure would force us to up the discourse. The OP's points are good (except for the last one) but the whole point has gotta be REDUCING the role of money in politics.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Gee, I wonder how we elected people before TV

:eyes:

Banning TV ads would be great, because the candidates would have to give themselves more face time with the voters. They couldn't rely on hit and run attack ads to make misleading insinuations about the other side.

[Bruce McAuley]

3. Sounds like a good start!

On the face of it, it should work.
I don't think it could be much shorter and to the point, myself.
Why should Microsoft buy my state representative when they got no employees/voters in my district?

Bruce

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I think that's a great start!

And maybe a great plan. I might be able to/want to tweak it around the edges, but as a concept, I like it a lot.

The other issue is the 527s. That's where the really overt shit gets slung. I'd like to see some limits there. I'm sure the 'free speech' stuff can managed.

The alternative is an even simpler plan - 100% public financing. Take a penny in donations and go to jail. The 527 issue applies to this one, too.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

8. I think these are good ideas

The teevee ads probably need to stay. People are just too dependent on the teevee for information. But the ads could be limited to a shot of the candidate, speaking only his/her own words. "I'm running for XYZ and this is why you should vote for me." No montage of graphics/pictures with some annoymous voice over. Sounds dull but there couldn't be any of this later denial of "gee, I didn't mean that, it was put together by someone else" BS.