Ah, but your operating from the premise that the flow can not be shut off.
Just what makes you believe that it can't?
Personally, I think the best way to shut off the flow is to recognize corporations are not individuals and as such are not protected of there right to free speech, which is the root of all the PACs having existance.
Only individuals be allowed to give money, and then only up to a certain limit.
I know, just a simplistic as your water hose metaphor.

But that's my point, Rook; make laws that try to forbid corporations from giving, and they will find other ways to donate. As long as the government is in the business of choosing winners and losers, people are going to spend money in order to influence those decisions (logically enough). Making new laws will just cause them to find other ways to do it, just as damming the flow of water will only divert it or delay it for a time.

Two words - Flat Tax

With a true flat tax, Congress would have a much more difficult time 'compensating' its donors without the volumnous and incomprehensible (and tree-killing) document known as the federal tax code. Identifying those elected officials who 'return favors' would be much easier to identify and scrutinize.

In other words, dont try to block the flow of funds, just make what those funds are buying more obvious.

Once again, I point out that a flat tax has nothing whatever to do with changing what's deductible in tax code. It's as applicable to say that "flat tax" will cure cancer. Or suggesting that if we switch from cursive to block handwriting, people who understand only Mandarin will understand us more clearly.

What you actually seem to want to suggest, bains, is eliminate all deductions. This is not a "flat tax," which would instead eliminate graduations in the tax code, and by itself, do nothing whatever about deductability.

"Eliminating deductions" and "flat tax" are completely orthogonal concepts.

Why is it so many people are so completely ignorant of what a "flat tax" is? Surely it's not so popular because many people have no comprehension of what it means? That would be scary. Now I'm wondering.

I'm still interested in the idea of letting anyone and any entity donate as much money as they want to whomever and whatever political entity they want, but simply require that it all pass through a single blind trust so no recipient has a clue as to who the donors are. It's not a cure-all, by any means, but it pushes back the main element of corruption a ways.

"Identifying those elected officials who 'return favors' would be much easier to identify and scrutinize."

That's, more than not, pretty easy now. People largely don't pay attention or care, apparently.

I think people care, but who are you going to vote for?

Bush? He takes money from the big fat-cat corporations! Boooo!

Kerry? He takes money from the rich trial lawyers and deep-pocket unions! Boooo!

Now Nader. There's a guy with clean hands!

P.S. I think the flat tax was popularized by Steve Forbes who pushed it tied to an elimination of all deductions. I think that is why when people think flat tax, they think no deductions. I do think people understand that it also involves a real flat tax. I think most people think that the ultra-rich pay less than there 35% after all their deductions and loopholes, and would pay more taxes with a 17% flat tax after eliminating all deductions. That, I think, is why it is popular. At least here on the right (sorry Andy, but it's true) side of the blogosphere.

Me, I'm for a log-linear tax with gaussian variance. But I haven't been getting much sleep lately.

When you get so convoluted as to think in terms of a log-linear tax with a gaussian variance, no wonder you can't sleet!

As far as money for campaigning (sp?), two suggestions. First, put all the money for a given party into one big pot and let the party hacks decide how it gets spent. Second, ban all ads from tv or any other media until two weeks before the election, at least for presidential elections. I'd like to see a universal date for all primaries followed two to four weeks later by the election. Asking too much I know given our penchant for holding four year campaigns.

Sometimes I think the whole political process has devolved into part of the entertainment network. Nader is right in saying there is not much to choose between the two major parties. Thanks to the wisdom of the founding fathers, the federal government is too tied up most of the time to do anything really effective anyway. Let's enjoy the theater and let the money flow!

I should point out here that the AMT is practically a flat tax (very few deductions and exemptions), only two slabs (26% and 28%) very close together. Yet the AMT is hated. I suspect a real flat tax would end up looking much like the AMT ..

True, but the AMT is a flat tax that only applies to people making somewhere upwards of $100K. The reason it is hated is that it has never been inflation adjusted and every year more and more people are subject to it, including people who would never think of themselves as 'rich'. Dual-middle income families are more and more finding themselves at the tender mercies of the AMT. I don't think people would hate it as much if they thought other people were paying the same rate (ie, how a real flat tax would work).

Gary, I'd agree that most folks are ignorant with regards to flat taxation, and that reducing deductions and 'flat tax' in common parlance are orthogonal. Yet a true flat tax is one which affects everyone and everything earning income the exact same way. I earn $50,000, the Federal Goverment takes 12%, you earn $250,000, the gov takes 12%, corporation X earns $1,000,000,000, the gov takes 12% - no federal deductions, no federal exemptions, no federal loopholes.

"First, put all the money for a given party into one big pot and let the party hacks decide how it gets spent."

That does wonders for people who are independents, or at least not mindless party drones -- which is most people, really -- who want to support various individuals and causes, but not others, in the sweeping and somewhat incoherent coalitions that our two parties necessarily are.

"Second, ban all ads from tv or any other media until two weeks before the election, at least for presidential elections."

Yes, all media, down to blogs, e-mail, and talking. There will be no problem whatever distinguishing what "media" is. Also, assuming one can magically accomplish this, there will be no ways to less overtly convey political messages and propaganda than through ads. No "political speech police" or "political speech courts" need be created, and half the country wouldn't wind up haulted into the relevant courts. No siree! Bullet-proof proposals, indeed.

Myself, I propose a law that requires that everyone will be nice. It should be equally trouble-free and enforceable.

"Yet a true flat tax is one which affects everyone and everything earning income the exact same way."

Regarding an income tax only -- which is scarcely the only tax we pay -- why do people generally ignore that? -- it would take the same percentage of income, yes. I've written many times, and I'm hardly the only person to have done so, that this hardly "affects everyone... the exact same way."

Enrak, you're likely right about the mushing of the two concepts stemming largely from Steve Forbes. I wonder if the reason he's dropped from public view is that he's taking part in that cross-country DARPA race now.

Regarding "Federally collected" income tax only.

Gary, I really dont mind paying taxes - I do mind governments wasting its tax revenues on pet projects, payoffs, and boondoggles. I've complained to Allard, Cambell, McInnis, and Owens plenty times - this pales in comparison to running into city council members or county commissioners in City Market and giving them an earful. The point being, I have direct access to and control over the local politicans. This becomes problematic the further up the ladder the pol goes.

Those in the political stratosphere, are inherently insulated from the common folk, you know we the people. And if these pols happen to be in a tight re-election race, a savvy customer, constituent or not, can gain access via political contributions. Furthermore, this person can imply further donations may be forthcoming if the pol will consider some minor change in the federal tax code.

Admittedly, congress would still be able to dole out the pork and paybacks, but that's a whole lot easier to see, and subsequently scrutinize. If you can curtail the way congress is able to payoff the financially motivated campaign donors, donations will (or should) diminish.