In an election cycle where candidates like Bernie Sanders are advocating for, even preaching, campaign finance reform, we have to ask ourselves, would the reforms that he (or another candidate) are advocating really fix the problem of corruption in our electoral system? The answer is, of course, NO. A cursory read of the link above to Senator Sanders' plan for campaign finance reform shows how he would really reform it; a constitutional amendment putting Congress in charge of finance regulations, or, to use a farming analogy, a constitutional amendment putting foxes in charge of hen houses.
In order to actually solve a problem, one must look to the root cause of the problem rather than treating symptoms as Senator Sanders' ideas attempt to do. The cause of the problems of corruption in the electoral system today has its root in the development and institutionalization of the political parties themselves. The problems we are having today were foreseen as far back as 1797 by the "Father of our country" in George Washington's Farewell Address. In a time when we spend so much of our effort arguing about what this or that founding father "really meant" with certain texts in founding documents, it would do us well to look at George Washington's intent and warnings for the future of our country.
President Washington had seen firsthand the awful effects that party allegiance can have on a country as he presided over the United States' reaction to the French Revolution and the European War that followed. Federalist and Anti-Federalists (the major parties back then) became spiteful and even vengeful toward one another as they argued over the position of neutrality taken by Washington and the subsequent treaty with England negotiated by Jon Jay and advocated for by the Federalists. Based on these observations, Washington saw a future for us of oscillating dominance by one party over another, which each using its turn in power to taken vengeance on the other, and rallying everyone from the highest officials in government to the common voter to take part on one side or the other. As such, over the last 220 years, we have developed this "win at all costs" mentality that has lead to those with money taking control of the two major parties in both determining winners of elections and policies supported by those winners.
So, what should the government do about this? The answer is as it always is: interfere LESS, not more. As it stands right now, the government at the federal, state, and some local levels all treat the Democratic and Republican Parties as more or less a duopoly. These parties are rewarded by the government in current and future elections for having held a certain percentage of the vote in previous elections. As such, they get preferred treatment on ballot access and on the ability to have candidates appear in televised debates. In some states, only "recognized" parties are legally allowed to fund raise to certain amounts, intentionally disenfranchising those hoping to form a "third party". These laws are passed by the dominant party in order to restrict competition and allow themselves an easier road to stay in power. This is exactly the kind of unfair and unscrupulous behavior decried in business by advocates of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but the government does not allow that law to be applied to its own political parties.
The best way our government can improve its current electoral system and reduce the corruption that cronyism brings is to stop recognizing political parties altogether. I am not saying that parties should be banned, just that they should not be recognized in the electoral process. The government should only recognize individuals running for office. Each individual running for office should have exactly the same legal requirements and procedures for ballot access, fund raising, and debate participation regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.
Under this system, if a political party wanted to choose a candidate from a list of those who desired to run under that party's flag, they would be free to do so, but completely without interference or support from the government. There would be no government run or staged primaries, primary debate, or primary funding. Each candidate who wanted to appear on the November ballot would have specific paperwork requirements to be filed by a specific date and that would be it. Party members would be free to assemble on their own prior to that date and choose a candidate to rally around and support, but they would do so with no help or recognition from the government. The paperwork requirements should be manageable enough that anyone with good enough ideas to rally a few hundred people around her (him) could get on the ballot in any/every state. Ballots should list candidates in random order and without listing their party affiliation. Voters who wanted to vote in an educated way would then need to research the individual candidates and find which one(s) they most aligned with morally, philosophically, and politically.
We all know this is never going to happen, because the members of the two parties currently in charge are never going to vote laws into existence that weaken their stranglehold on the gravy train that is the American Congress. Of course, I choose to live in the world where the impossible dream can come true if only ... will happen. The ... that would have to happen in this case would be for a majority of Americans to become simultaneously fed up with the ridiculousness of those who govern us and all at once decide only to vote for candidates not in one of the two traditional parties. What are the odds of that? Pretty slim, I admit. But I will say this: every time you cast a vote for a Democrat or a Republican, no matter what the reason for your vote, you are perpetuating the system; you are part of the problem.
