Assumption: politicians feel the need for money to run effective campaigns for public office.
Assumption: politicians cannot avoid being influenced in their policy decisions by the knowledge of who has contributed to their campaigns in the past (actually, they are influenced by the knowledge of who might contribute to their campaigns in the future).
Given: courts have decided that political contributions are “free speech”, and thus can’t be limited in any significant way.
Proposed Solution: eliminate the knowledge in the second assumption.
How: Each candidate will be required to open an account with an organization that serves as a buffer between the contributor and the candidate. The contributor sends in a multipart form with a contribution; part of the organization credits the contribution to the contributor (providing a link back to show that the contribution was received) without knowing the intended recipient (the multipart form bit); another part of the organization credits the recipient’s account without knowing the contributor. Each contribution is uniquely numbered for auditing purposes (to ensure that the contribution went where it was supposed to go). Candidates have access only to their accounts, of course. Contributions are unlimited.
Teeth: Felony to offer contributions to a candidate in a manner such that the identity of the contributor is known to the candidate. Felony to accept a contribution from a contributor such that the candidate knows the identity of the contributor. No candidate event (dinner, other fund raiser) can require or accept a fee for attendance (to preserve anonymity of donations).
Independent groups or individuals can pay for all the advertising they wish, as long as there is no way to determine who is paying for the advertising. Advertising companies must register as complying with buffer rules to be eligible to place such advertisements. Any challenges to such adverts (libel, inaccuracy) would be through an independent agency to preserve the buffer; repeated “offenses” could subject the advertising companies to lose their franchise to do political advertising.
Media outlets using public airwaves (television, radio) are required to offer free access to anyone who wishes to speak their peace (“the public square”), drawn randomly from those applying. This ensures that it is not only those with money who are able to voice their opinion. Other media (print, etc.) are required to ensure that the buffer rules are in place (no “paid for by Joe Blow” stuff).
Pipe dream? Probably. One flaw is that it depends on an informed electorate to distinguish information from quantity when a self- or well-supported candidate is running (see Corzine or someone Bill Gates supports). I guess we would get what we deserve in that case.
Fire away.