So what's the LLC's name?

Of course, the simple solution would be to allow only private citizens... verifiable by say a social security number to donate money. Disallow any and all groups from donating money, corps, llc, PAC, IE, unions, professional groups, my aunt Sally's homeowner association... pretty much anything which is not really a single person.

Freedom to Association is one thing; having an unified group voice in a newsletter or media op-ed is one thing, but it is entirely another matter to send out cash money. As it is continues to be demonstrated by media stories of 'secret' political donations made by a "single" group.

Is it really so awful to want to strip corporations of their legal entity status which affords them the same, if not greater, protections under the law then private citizens? A conservative would say "yes, it is really so aweful" and maybe some tripe about how such bullshit would only hurt America, God, Apple Pie, and Homeownership rates. Reform of a bad system is no reform.

You just made an argument against limiting campaign financing, not against public financing. They don't have to be linked.

We should mandate that all candidates wear the corporate logos of their largest sponsors, NASCAR-style.

More seriously, and I don't know if this would pass constitutional muster, but if possible we should heavily tax large political contributions (say, over $100) and use the money for public financing.

I think a blind trust for campaign contributions sounds like a good idea:

Imagine a simple law, outlined four years ago by two legal scholars at Yale, under which a candidate could only receive funds from a blind trust managed by the federal government. Citizens, companies, parties, PACs, and lobbies could all contribute to any cause, party, or candidate they wish - but their contribution would pass through the blind trust. Candidates would receive the money but would no more know the source of their contributions than they know with certainty who voted for them.

This provision would powerfully change a donor’s expected return on investment. If the candidate to whom you are contributing cannot verify your generosity, you cannot invest with the expectation of any return beyond the benefit of a leader who shares your general political orientation. The need to restrict the size of contributions would be vastly diminished. Why would Big Oil, Big Labor, or Big Tobacco contribute to a campaign if there was no assurance of a payback? And how can a politician pay back a contribution if he or she cannot verify its source? Of course many citizens and organizations would assure a wide range of politicians of their undying financial generosity. Like voters, they would be rewarded with little more than a warm but secretly skeptical smile. The market for politicians will diminish as did the market for votes - and our republic will never look back.

All this is just treating the symptom, not the disease. Instead of finding new ways to pay for increasingly expensive campaigns, we should be tackling why campaigns are becoming so expensive in the first place -- television costs.

A real campaign finance reform proposal should require the FCC to force stations to donate a certain amount of airtime to any candidate that files as a requirement of their license. TV stations don't like it? Tough shit - you're only renting OUR airwaves.

Increase the amount of airtime in tiers according to fundraising (and up to a maximum amount) to discourage candidates from creating sockpuppet campaigns to get more airtime. Add requirements that the free ads can only mention either the candidate or opponents in the next election.

Suddenly campaigns are literally 80% cheaper. Some campaigns will still raise tons of money and invest it in more field organizing. But I think that's the kind of campaign we'd rather see than the current situation.

Aexia, I think you are right about looking at the cause of increasingly expensive campaigns. But although we have some control, via the FCC, of over-the-air networks, can we assume that campaigns can do without cable and satellite television? I think those are outside the control of the FCC. Also, think a few years down the road: It's not crazy to think that "television" will be mostly delivered via Internet.

I'm curious what others think about the blind trust idea. We stopped the buying of votes with secret ballots. Why not stop the buying of elections via "secret campaign donations"?