Here's the proper campaign reform:
Individuals can donate any amount but the recipient must issue immediate disclosure via the internet (say within 3 to 5 days of receipt or face the punishment of those funds being directly taken by a new watchdog agency whose sole pupose would be to scoom up those unreported funds and apply them to the national debt);
Corporations, unions or any organizations are NOT citizens and don't have the same rights as citizens, therefore they can't contribute directly to candidates--but they can spend whatever they deem proper on TV, radio or mail urging their customers, members or whatever to vote for and/or send money to XXXX candidate--but they must accurately identify ALL contributors to whatever front organization they set up or face jail-type prosecution for fraud.
Example: "Citizens for Fighting Fraud in Government" or some such would have to publically include in/on the ads etc. that they are supported by, say, Enron, George Soros, Global Crossing...
"In other words, Bush will sign a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional on the theory that the courts will throw it out, even though his administration will have to argue that they shouldn't throw it out, even though the administration really wants the courts to throw it out."
It's not surprising that incumbents hardly ever lose. By violating constitutional restrictions on the size and scope of government they are able to dispense favors and impose punishments like Mafia Godfathers running a protection racket.
Incumbent politicians use their ability to bestow government handouts and pass harmful legislation to subtly coerce people into financing their campaigns.
As a result, many businesses, wealthy individuals, and special interests contribute preferentially to incumbents, even if they prefer a challenger's stands on the issues. For many contributors with vested interests it is vitally important to not offend the incumbent office holder lest government favors be denied, or harmful legislation passed.
Worse still, even though most of the money goes to incumbents, many contributors "hedge their bets" by giving to both major parties, even though these parties are supposed to represent polar opposites. As a result, political contributions have become a form of insurance, instead of an expression of deeply held convictions.
By contrast, challengers have no ability (and often no desire) to use government power to reward friends and punish enemies. As a result, they have less ability to raise money.
Check this out, please!