The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Jacques Anatole François Thibault
Then why did they change it?
I whole wholeheartedly agree with the first quoted line, and have thought about the idea in the second line. The things I would suggest to reduce the advantage of wealth in our electoral systems include:
-
Where there are petitions, outlaw any payment to the petition collectors - if you care enough to stand in front of a grocery store and ask for signatures, go for it, but I don’t think it is fair for people to get paid for that.
-
Use a voucher system for all political contributions, with an annual limit per person. This would include local, state, fed, for office, a party, or a ballot measure. It would include donations to PACS and lobbyists. People could only donate in a district that governs their home, and maybe at work if they are different districts (i.e. a WI resident working in Chicago, IL).
-
Create a register of equal opportunity media outlets. They would need to provide balanced access to candidates and various sides of propositions, etc, in a way similar to the (old?) FCC rules. There would be no specific limits on editorial content outside of the access minimums. The access requirement would be specific and objectively easy to validate, and vary by media type - For example, printed media would need to give equal space for text to all sides, broadcast would need to have equal time for all sides, on-line would need to have equal prominence for statements from supporters of all sides… etc. And in return, these media get the right to be in the press room at the white house and a lot of similar access - traveling with elected and high level appointed officials on official business, going to the big dinner and making fun of the President, things like that… and outlets that do not follow these equal access minimums do not get the guaranteed press corp membership. I think this, if implemented right, could create a perceived line between legitimate and fake news.
-
Outlaw PACS that allow invisible money to sponsor “Issue” advertisements.
I have no idea about how to deal with the revolving door between politicians and regulators, on one side, and industry on the other, where politicians get well-paid cushy jobs before and after being in office, as a reward for lax legislation or enforcement.
Much, if not all of this would require amendments to the constitution, although a more liberal supreme court and appropriate legislation could move in this direction on some of these fronts.
There will always be competition. Just because the first few calls can bring in 10 or 100 x as much money as they used to, does not mean the legislators stop calling people - It does mean that the fund raisers stop calling at $10,000 contributors instead of $100 contributors, but that just means that the money stack got higher while spending the same amount of time and calling the same number of people to beg for it.
I would say that the more a single person can donate, the more direct influence that one person has, and that is a bad thing. So, even lowering the donation limits (and placing limits and reporting requirements on Super-PACS) would be a marginal improvement.
There’s no silver bullet here, but certain things can help:
-
Don’t discourage third party advertising, encourage it. Politicians and the media don’t like third party ads, so we’re bombarded with the mistaken idea that these ads are a bad thing. The politicians like to control their message and the media likes to play kingmaker. But third party ads are better for democracy, IMO, because they take fundraising out of the hands of the politicians and leaves them at the mercy of what various groups say about them. In practice, they still raise more than enough money in most cases to get their own message out, but they want to have sole control, which is why they tell you 3rd party advertising is bad. 3rd party advertising also defeats a lot of incumbents, and politicians REALLY think that’s bad.
-
LImit the power of government to hand out favors. I’m not talking radical constitutional amendments or reinterpretations of the Constitution. I’m talking about simple rules changes for Congress: a) all bills must be on one subject. No sneaking money for campaign contributors into must pass bills, b) No tax break or subsidy may be given to any group consisting of less than 10 million people. The CBO would be the judge of how many people a tax break or subsidy directly affected. c) continue the earmark ban.
-
End all gerrymandering. Computer created districts, geographically logical, without regard to party ID or race. This would create a lot of competitive districts and a lot fewer districts capable of electing very liberal or very conservative candidates. It would force both parties back to the center, which would make everyone less polarized and get rid of the nutters(except for the few who manage to get elected statewide).
Term limits are a bad idea. You end up with legislators who have no reason to compromise or get things done because they’ll be gone soon.
Limits on giving gifts to politicians is a good thing. It requires politicians to seek donations from a larger bases.
Limits on an individual or a group of politically organized individuals is bad. We want people to be engaged in politics. Restricting how much we can advocate does not help.
Dismissing “money is speech” is silly. It takes resources, in time and/or money, to advocate. We don’t accept monetary restrictions on abortion providers, or gun stores, or legal counsel. Because limiting how many resources one uses to assert those rights is limiting that right. Likewise, putting monetary restrictions on publishing limits that right.
I like your ideas, adaher.
Money is press. Produce and distribute a movie or newspaper without money. Good luck.
Simple. No campaign donations, every candidate gets the same campaign fund from the public purse (there might also be a public poster, public TV spot, that kind of thing), politicians who spend a dollar more get disqualified from the race.
What if some group wants to spend money to get them elected? Or if some group wants to advocate for issues on which the politician agrees with them?
Regards,
Shodan
Because they’re busy-bodies, with an insatiable desire to be able to show that they’re “doing something” 
So I just looked up M. France — never cared for him, although Cabell did — and Google has this:
Born: 16 April 1844, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United States
Died: 21 December 1964, Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire, France
Formidable !
On a roll I looked up Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire. I do not love France, but I find her infinitely interesting.
The commune has… Five public and private preschools (écoles maternelles) with a combined total of 500 students: Jean Moulin, Honoré de Balzac-Anatole France, Charles Perrault, Périgourd, and Saint-Joseph
Which is practically the page. Frigging preschools. Which subject has the interest of recipes for mangelwurzels.
Perrault and Moulin are odd enough, but naming a tots’ school after de Balzac ? No wonder my good Germans thoughtfully shake their heads contemplating their neighbours.
What’s wrong with Balzac ? I mean apart from the fact that his name is inherently funny to anglo speakers ?
Any third party is absolutely free to speak, hold conferences & rallies, put up posters and put out TV ads ; on the condition that they expressly do it in their own names, with their own words, and with no contact whatsoever with the candidate or emissaries thereof.
No giving money to the candidate. None, zip, zilch ; be it in cold hard cash or junkets or tailored suits. Any politician caught colluding with a third party or accepting a gift of any nature whatsoever is ineligible, and any public mandate they currently have is revoked.
Forget the drug war, political corruption is where there should be zero tolerance.
Of course it’ll never be done, since the guys supposed to be legislating & regulating the corruption happen to be the guys who profit from it. But that’s why we keep updating The List, see ? 
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
What’s wrong with Balzac ? I mean apart from the fact that his name is inherently funny to anglo speakers ?
[/QUOTE]
I never thought that was so; but many of my fellow anglo speakers are profoundly simple-minded. Yet… calling a wretched infants school after one of the greatest writers in French and world history is remarkably… simple-minded. Banal, in fact.
The houses at my 1st secondary modern were named after Devonshire [del]Pirates[/del] Heroes of the Sea, Raleigh, Drake etc. Scoundrels all; but to name an entire school after any person seems utterly ridiculous — not to mention insulting to that person.
The argument on one side: My right of free speech is essentially meaningless when all I’ve got is a soapbox to stand on and the guy behind me has a sound truck.
The argument on the other side: Tough!
Bad analogy. The sound truck behind you makes your soapbox speech inaudible.
How about you on a soapbox and the guy ten blocks over has a sound truck? Do you think the guy should be denied his sound truck?
This was the conclusion the Supreme Court reached in Citizens United. It is that conclusion, and that freedom, that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama wanted to undo.
Maybe we could call that a PAC.
Trump gets to pick who’s on the register. Still a good idea?
Regards,
Shodan
Want to get money out of politics? That’s easy. Just get politics out of money.