http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu...
He really does a good job characterizing the effects of money on politics, and outlines some cool ideas for sort of "shims" on the way to more complete campaign finance reform (which would take action from congress, and I guess a constitutional amendment or two).
But the thing that struck me the most was his point that fixing the corrupting influence of money on politics isn't like trying to do something like reverse a culture of racism: it's much easier. We just have to change the incentives.
Politicians should be prohibited from direct investment, both during and sometime after serving. Doesn't stop someone from enriching some partners who agree to pay him back at some later date. There probably is no end to the corruption.
I think that letting foreign companies shape our legislation is such a manner ought to considered at best a stones throw from treason.
Also, running an effective campaign for someone else without central coordination of the message is a lot more difficult than what's going on now. Such campaigns can easily backfire.
That's why I think the extent of political corruption could be reduced by banning donations.
As hokey as it sounds, people get involved in politics because they want to change the world. It is the natural end result of activism like we are seeing around SOPA. It's possible that at some point, someone fighting SOPA will decide to work for a candidate or run for office themselves. At that point they'll need to start raising funds. Will that corrupt them automatically? I don't think so.
Also, it's not unheard of that some politicians are opportunists without very strong convictions one way or the other. At least that's what I sometimes feel when I hear them talk about stuff in a way that betrays utter incompetence.