Washington has been arguing over campaign finance reform for years. It pops up from time to time, especially during election years like so many other topics that politicians talk about, but never actually attempt to fix.

But let’s be honest with ourselves about something first. We, as American tax paying citizens, know jack squat about campaign finance. The average person likely doesn’t know who even enforces enforce that set of vague, ill-defined campaign finance laws (see endnote).

But the truth really is that the laws, like so many in Washington, are too complicated to be effective. And what they really lack is just some common sense.

I’m going to avoid a conspiracy theory here, and not suggest that maybe they were written to be complex on purpose - so that each side can easily find and create loopholes. But like I say, I’m not going to suggest that.

As a voter, I am disillusioned when I think that Washington will sort this out. Isn’t that like asking casino owners in Las Vegas to write gambling laws? Or asking big oil companies to define our energy policy. Oh wait, the Bush administration did do that last one.

Both parties don’t want to touch campaign finance law too much because it’s what keeps their pockets lined. Unless one party thinks the other is getting a better deal, neither party really cares to make a campaign finance law that really works, is clear, understandable and fair to everyone.

Once again it is left up to us llamas to chart the plan. And a simple plan it is. It will keep campaigns fair and even, and best of all, level the field for the little guy with little money.

The gist of the plan is this: there is one master bank account for both campaigns. All money donated to either campaign gets deposited to the one account, and each candidate gets 50% of the money.

Example, if the racist institution Bob Jones University (see endnote), who normally gives more than a few greenbacks to Republicans, gives the President Bush Reelection Campaign $100,000, then it does not go to George W., rather the “master fund” that divides the money in half, and each candidate gets $50,000.

It has many effects. One, it keeps one super-rich, super-connected candidate from amassing a giant war chest against a poorer candidate. A poorer candidate would never be able to compete. Simply, more money for advertising could bury the other guy. It gives the guy with fewer connections the ability to play on a level field.

It would remove the suggestion that certain organization “buy” candidates by donating huge sums of money. Mircosoft could never “buy” influence in exchange for favor by getting anti-trust lawsuits thown out by Ashcroft, because half the money would be going to the guy Bill Gates would never support, the Democrat. Now, there is an ancillary argument that this would allow a big company, like say an energy company could “buy” both candidates in one fell swoop. But do you think George W. Bush would listen to anything MoveOn.org would ask for, or would Kerry agree to the conservative stances of Bob Jones University?

One way to ensure both candidates don’t get tainted is to keep the contributions anonymous. Yes, that right, the AFL-CIO union would not be able to tell any candidate they actually donated. Of course, that presents a danger in that keeping such a thing private removes the finances from public scrutiny. Personally, I favor full disclosure and up to the minute reporting on all fundraising.

The concept is elegant in its simplicity. Whenever any presidential candidate has a fundraiser they are technically also fund raising for the competition. So if John Kerry is at an AFL-CIO fundraiser, patrons do not write checks to the John Kerry Campaign, but rather to a single Presidential Election Campaign. This PEC would then see to it the money is divided 50/50.

Simple, eh?

Endnote 1:
The Federal Election Commision. In 1975, Congress created the FEC to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. They are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections. The FEC is made up of six members, 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Endnote 2:
Yes, I called Bob Jones University racists. I don’t use the term lightly, either. Bob Jones University does not allow interracial dating, which is the modern day equivalent of, “keepin dem black boys away froms our white women.” Not only is this racist but also I always wondered why feminist organizations have not criticized this. What does this say about women? That they are not intelligent enough to decide whom to fall in love with? The conservative institutions have to make that decision for women now? Isn’t that like telling women they can’t make the choice of what to do with their own wombs? Oh, wait a minute, I think I see a pattern here…