With the Democrats, and to a lesser extent, John McCain, now controlling Senate proceedings, there's a reasonable chance some sort of reform of campaign finance reform package might run the gauntlet of Congressional pork and amendments, and then stumble off to get vetoed by President George W. "I didn't get here for free, you know" Bush.  And by "reasonable," I mean the likelihood is approximately that of a snowball maintaining structural integrity in a reputed subterranean furnace.  Politicians willingly cutting themselves off from the trough of graft and bribery upon which they've come to depend is like Microsoft giving a competitor a hearty slap on the back and saying "Hey, there's room enough in this market for both of us!"  It just can't be done.

    So with this in mind, it seems futile to suggest improvements to the McCain-Feingold act, which by the time it is passed (if it ever does so), is likely to resemble the Black Knight, a limbless torso hopping around, proclaiming to all that will listen that it's a still a miracle cure for the problems plaguing modern politics, and all the caveats and loopholes tacked onto it are only "a flesh wound!"  But I'm an idealist at heart, and if people really want campaign reform, here's two simple places to start:

Step 1:  Ban all campaigns.
    Now, I'm not saying get rid of elected officials altogether, although that is a tempting prospect.  No, I think the best thing to do is prevent all candidates from embarking on these ridiculous one- to six-year-long extended money-raising national tours.  If your Representative, Senator, or President is off making a guest appearance at a $1000-a-plate dinner, how exactly is your interest being served?  Campaigns are simply an excuse for the wealthy and powerful to gain direct access to politicians, and deliver their bribes in person.  Whether it's a speaking engagement, a luncheon fundraiser, or a simple meet-and-greet, every stop involves funds going into the pocket of the pol.  Some of it goes to sponsor future such events, some to saturate the airwaves with well-timed, misleading attacks on the candidate's opponent, and the rest just sort of distributes itself out to various "administrative" duties.  All in all, a perpetual-motion machine continuously cycling through corruption, greed and waste.
    So why not just ban campaigns altogether?  Candidates should be allowed two or three debates in a public place, and every candidate on the ballot should be allowed to participate.  For state and national offices, these should be carried live on every TV and radio station.  Yes, this cuts into broadcast profits, but the FCC is giving these broadcasters exclusive access to chunks of the frequency spectrum for free, so they ought to be able to spare the time.  All states put out a voters guide, and all candidates can make use of that.  Each candidate is allowed to have a web site, where they can pontificate to their heart's content on whatever homilies spring to mind that day.  There will be no mass mailings, no posters, no buttons, no fliers, no TV or radio commercials, and no lawn signs.  You're running for public office, not to be the new Chairman Mao.
    But isn't this an abridgement of free speech?  Heavens, no.  Since when have political commercials been a useful source of balanced information?  They are all lies, the perpetrators know them to be lies, and whoever can make their opponent look the most scurrilous comes out on top (and then the incumbent wins on election day).  They are to rational discourse what hardcore porn is to art.  And if pornography somehow threatens the public good, then so do political commercials.

Step 2:  Ban political parties.
    The defection of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords from the Republican party to "Independent" was entertaining, but it also raised an interesting question: Why shouldn't all Senators be "Independent"?  Is it really that difficult to have to think through each bill your passing and decide how you're going to vote?  Do Senators really need their party leader holding their hand and telling them how to vote on each initiative?  Okay, clearly this is what happens when Strom Thurmond is wheeled in and paraded around ("ooh, he looks so lifelike today!"), but you would think that other elected officials might actually be mentally competent to complete their assigned tasks.  Or you would hope, anyway.  Okay, maybe that's asking too much.
    But it shouldn't be.  And a system in which people were elected based on their positions, rather than the letter following their name, would seem to be inherently more fair and useful than the current one.  Who knows, a former Republican might reach elected office in Massachusetts, or a Democrat in Utah!  And this is not some violation of Constitutionally-protected "free assembly."  We, in theory at least, put people in office to vote their consciences, not what some megalithic corporation who gave $20 million to their party bosses tells them to vote.

So that's it.  Two simple steps that intend to return this country to a representative democracy, as opposed to the corporate/special-interest bidding war it's become.  Yes, politicians will hate these ideas, and complain bitterly that it restricts their freedom, and their ability to "get the message out."  Which is exactly why it should be done.