We're in trouble. . .and we have been for decades.  The body politic no longer stands for the common man nor woman, and when it professes to be, we can be certain they're being like politicians--liars, cheats, and thieves.  Even the best of them can't help themselves as they say what it takes to get elected and remain in office.

So, I have a proposal.  It's not perfect.  Some would say it's not reasonable.  The first standard is impossible, but the second is attainable if enough temerity and effort is given to the effort.  Nothing less than the very survival of our political system is at stake--what's left of a severely dismantled and disabled system that is on life support.  Besides, we have nothing to lose.  Can the current election process get much worse?  Oh, sure, one could argue that elections in, say, Libya are much more tainted than ours.  Sure they are, but their elections aren't held up to the world like freshly whitened laundry for all to admire the way we breathlessly advertise our own.

Get on with it, you say?  Fine.  Pay attention.  We take the tainted money out of the hands of the wannabe politicians, who truly are gangbangers with a more illustrious address, and put it back into the hands of the taxpayers.  What do I want to see for my tax money?  I want a level playing field during elections.  No more attempting (and succeeding in many cases) to buy the election with $120M of your own money; no more taking a dime of PAC funds from any group, corporation, or private citizen.  You think that's an abrogation of rights?  Then just what do you call sleaze money oozing from every pore of every lobbyist and special interest group in this country, fair play?!  No, we play by new rules, and those rules come from us. . .and they aren't free.

Here are specifics.  (Now, when I say "specifics," please realize that there is a lot of background work to be done.  There's much haggling, wailing, haranguing, and gnashing of teeth to be had, and all that is to be expected.)  First, we establish a commission to run the elections, as unscrupulous folks as we can find after a long vetting process.  It would be an apolitical group as best as that can be had in this country.  Second, we take a small portion of our income tax--$5 a person seems about right--and it goes into a specific operating fund strictly for elections.  Some financial wonks can figure out how to invest the future monies to make the commission reasonably self-sustaining.  Third, we take the monies from that pool of money to run the national elections, to actually pay for the campaigns.

Ah, but here's the rub--everyone gets the same amount of money relative to the office for which he or she is running.  For example, if you're a Democrat angling to get the party nod for president, you get something like $5M. . .and so do your legitimate opponents. . .and so do Republicans and their opponents. . .and Independents. . .and?  Senatorial races would get less money, say $3M (all figures are supposition at this conceptualization, but my point is equal money for every legit candidate--more on what makes someone "legit," momentarily), while House race candidates would get even less.

There is primary money such as suggested above, then there would be more cash coming a candidate's way once she or he got the actual nod, call it the Finals Payola or the November Score or whatever cute term the media would give it.  For presidential types, perhaps each would get $25M or more, then the scale decreases for Senate and House races.  In short, every candidate would have an equal take of money for each step of the process commensurate to his or her intended office, and no other money would be allowed, period.  "Use it wisely" would be the mantra, and candidates would be free to spend the funds however they wished:  do you spend half your reserves on one commercial for TV or do you opt to do a cheaper print campaign?  The choices would be theirs.

Obviously, dealing with the legitimacy issue regarding candidates would be the most difficult part of this entire process.  One idea that springs to mind is making the candidates acquire petition signatures (yes, I realize this would an area ripe for fraud, but how does that make it any different than what we have now?)--depending on the level of the race, a certain number of signatures would be required.  Wouldn't it be great to sign a petition for an unknown who seems not to be a professional politician, and then to see this person wind up in the primary with the same pot of money as Joe Politico from the Moneybags dynasty?  So, sure, ensuring we have genuine characters running for office would be tough but doable.  Besides, the wackos we have in office right now are hardly the cream of the crop--they're the best of the worst in most cases.

That's it:  simple, sturdy, though hardly foolproof, but the current system makes no sense at all.  The relaxed standards of money-laundering currently in play--and let's make no mistake about it, powerful groups and individuals are using money to buy influence and doing so by using figurehead associations such as the Americans for Prosperity--are even more idiotic and have cut out the heart of American politics. 

There is one other detail of the plan that would serve the voters well, too.  Debates would be mandatory (the number and styles to be worked out), and for argument's sake, let's say presidential candidates would have to debate five times.  No running from debates, or you get no money.  While we're at it, the networks should air live interviews with each candidate, asking the same questions regarding specific policies:  "Where do you stand on 'don't ask, don't tell?" or "How will you attack the country's deficit spending?"  Once again, either you take part in the interviews or you forfeit your money.

We are no longer governed by our peers, not when the top five percent of our nation hold the majority of the money (thus, power and influence), and not when they are the ones running for office or the people funding those seeking political futures.  It's beyond time for people of modest means and modest miens to have a real shot at representing us in Washington.  It's time for a modest proposal.