$20 PAC

     You want to limit the influence of money on politics or at least make the money that goes into politics more democratic? While a lot of laws would need to be changed to even get this idea off the ground, here's what you do. It's simple, possibly elegant, and definitely stupid.

     The maximum donation a candidate/incumbent can accept from a person (or corporation...thanks Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission decision) is twenty dollars ($20). Twenty bucks. That's it...even from himself. The person doing the donating would have to be at least of voting age (preferably registered to do so as well, but I won't advocate that just yet) because if you can't vote, you cannot participate in the system. I don't know how much of this country is over eighteen, but you have to figure at least half making a minimum possible total of about 150 million people which, multiplied by the maximum donation of $20 would be $3 billion dollars per Presidential candidate (though considerably less for each lesser one as I don't think you should be able to donate to people who are not in your district and thus cannot vote for).

     What is the point of this donation limit? For me, the idea is that even the poorest of the poor should have at least twenty dollars to spare for charitable purposes and I will consider donating money to a candidate seeking election to represent you in government as a charitable donation. Each person gets one vote and that is considered fair. No matter how wealthy or poor, you only get one. Money should really be no different. Why is it considered fair that a billionaire can tap his vast fortune to run for office, saturating the landscape with advertisements and socials, or that the well-to-do can donate vast sums of money to a candidate or party? Does that not give them undue influence? Isn't it supposed to be, "Let the best man with the best ideas win" and not "Let the most moneyed man win"? It's about ideas, not dollars...right?

     Therefore, limit the dollars to something more equitable. Candidates would need to get many donations to run a campaign or would have to actually appear at non-partisan sponsored events to debate one and other. They would need to listen to the people because they would need the money to get (re)elected. Politicians would be unable to shut them out. I admit this idea sounds terribly impractical but then I also think, "Who was the last President we've had who wasn't already wealthy?" We've had some rags to riches stories (Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln come to mind), but by the time they were in office, they had some cash to play with. Would it be so wrong to try a little something different?

     And while we're at it, eliminate the direct primary too. Let the political parties who back these candidates actually choose their candidates again. Direct primaries bring out the extremists on both ends and we end up with unelectable candidates as a result. If the direct primary is eliminated, then I will allow people to donate $20 to a political party in addition to a candidate. Maybe it can be a matching donation thing. For every candidate you give $20 to, you can also give $20 to their party assuming the candidate is represented by one.

     Deal?

DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)