We need a mostly publicly funded campaign system, based on small contributions and a very high matching multiple. Make it voluntary, but so attractive (with flexible spending cap and matching multiple to match higher spending of a rival who opts out) that no one sees an advantage to opting out. Problem (of vastly disproportionate influence of money) largely solved*, and with no First Amendment challenge. ( *with the exception of independent expenditures by special interests, and I suppose also with the exception of...er...non-monetary forms of lobbyist influence http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5895QJ20090910)

The introduced Fair Elections Now Act http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166 would move us in the right direction, although I'd want to ensure that candidates ended up with sufficient funding to avoid/mitigate any major disadvantage vs. independent special interest expenditures.

And we also need more restrictions on the "revolving door" through which members of Congress, key staff and department appointees regularly leave to (after a short hiatus at best) join lobbying firms or industries directly in highly lucrative positions -- an ongoing practice that is obviously conducive to a mutual back-scratching dynamic. I do realize that people have the right to earn a living, and that they develop expertise in the legislative process, particularly in policy areas in which they may have focused, but the waiting periods and other restrictions need to be strengthened.

I agree with the sentiment in the OP. However, short of publicly-financed campaigns, I don't see how you really get the money out of politics in general. You can regulate campaign contributions, but regulating the kind of "Call Senator Baucus' office, and ask him why he supports cannibalism" ad is dicier, both in crafting the legislation and from genuine 1st amendment concerns. The latter sort of advertising is, as an unintended consequence, free to be more lurid and fantastic, since the candidate can plausibly deny a connection to them.

The real culprit, of course, is the rotten-borough system of apportioning Senate seats. That $4 million comes out to at least four bucks for every man, woman, and child in Baucus' state, probably about $50 for every independent voter in that state. $4 million wouldn't go nearly as far in California or Texas, making no assumption about the relative ethics of the political class in any of those states; it's simply more expensive to buy Senators who represent larger numbers of people.

"the flagrant bribery of elected officials"

When money passes to elected officials like this, why is the assumption "bribery" instead of "extortion"?

This is a very serious question, not rhetorical at all.

Theory: Many competing businesses and interest groups. One politician who can influence laws and regulations to shift the balance between the competitors. Who has the power to extract rent?

Current practice: It's no secret that people and organizations have to continiually contribute to politicians simply to have the chance to be heard by them -- otherwise they are locked out at the door. And they have to contribute enough.

I have first-hand experience of a well known NY politician saying, quote: "Your client does not have enough money to talk to me". But the client's larger competitors did.

Does that sound closer to bribery or extortion?

History: Where to start? Oh ... one of the greatest tales of politics-meets-business is the historic "double corner" of Harlem RR stock -- the NYC and NYS legislators versus Cornelius Vanderbilt.

When he was building the railroad the NYC legislature passed a law requring him to buy, er, obtain a charter for it from it. After greasing enough palms he got the charter, the RR's stock started trading -- then the legislators personally en masse shorted the stock and revoked the charter.

As he was dealing with that, the NYS legislators thought: what a wonderful idea, we can do that too! They made him buy, er, obtain a charter from them, them en masse shorted the stock and revoked the charter. The Albany politicians were so brazen about it that they bragged in the newspapers about all the money they were going to make.

However Vanderbilt had more brains and competence than there were in the two legislatures combined. He secretly brought in a ship full of gold from Europe and agents from the western states who were unknown in NY financial markets, and then sequentially cornered all the stock in his railroad twice, first against the NYC legislators, then against the NYS legislators. So when they needed to get the shares required to close their short positions they had to come to him personally to get them, and pay whatever price he chose to set.

He let the NYC legislators off easy but taught the Albany ones a lesson. (Reputedly with the words: "I don't mind having to buy a legislature, but gentlemen once bought stay bought.")

In all that, do the legislators' actions versus Vanderbilt more bring to mind bribery or extortion?

And considering the incentives on Baucus, placing them in the larger picture, have the relationships between politicians and the rest of us, and the resulting incentives on behavior, fundamentally changed since Vanderbilt's day?

The whole "double corner" is a wonderfully educational episode from history -- true, entertaining, and teaching volumes about the realities of politics and business competition (Vanderbilt's enemy Daniel Drew of the Erie Railroad was the motivating force behing the whole thing) and about human nature. Just the sort of thing that every textbook on economics and political economics omits.

As to today ... anyone who thinks the NYS legislature doesn't still act just this way isn't watching it .

Of course, Washington politics might be entirely different in nature, I guess.

Whether politicians' unsavory behavior is more "bribery" or "extortion" has major implications for the design of any campaign finance reform that one wants to be effective -- but that would be another story.

Why does Ezra ask only about "this" money. And why only Baucus?

Below are the biggest political donors 1989-2010"

Eight of the biggest 12 (and 11 of the biggest 17) are unions giving money virtually exclusively to Democrats.

(Of the “non-union four” in the top 12, #1, AT&T, no longer exists in that incarnation ... two give most of their money to Dems (64% and 90%) ... and the Realtors give 48% to Dems and 51% to Repubs -- making them the big Repub contributor!)

So this list is totally dominated by money going to Democrats, with the great bulk of it union money. (And that doesn’t count the labor and footpower the unions provide in addition to money — which often is even more valuable than money.)

Hey, Baucus didn't receive any of this money? Baucus is the only Democrat receiving this flood of money who is influencing the health care proposal?

The two biggest malformations of the US health care system are the tax preference for medical benefits (merged at the hip with the employer-tie to insurance) and the blocking of interstate insurance sales that has cartelized state markets, with the anti-trust exemption that protects the cartels.

But proposals to fix these deformations, such as Wyden-Bennett, have been totally blocked by the unions -- DOA (read David Brooks on this, and Baucus in particular) -- that (1) have gold-plated health benefits and want to keep the tax subsidy for them (they are already ripping even Baucus's current proposal for being too tough on this score); and (2) that provide health services, and so want to block interstate competition to preserve high mandatory benefits imposed by the local cartels, which create jobs for them. Read what Denny Rivera says about this, he's not shy!

An irony is that Ezra himself has said that Wyden-Bennett would be better than what the Democrats are producing ... yet somehow he doesn't care in this context.

The biggest pharma donor on the list is #57. (Beer wholesalers are #25.)

My god, that's outrageous! But unions ... what unions?

Where are they in that "web" of health care lobbying? Nowhere. I guess they don't exist at all.

Except here:
~~~~~
Top political donors...

#2 AFSCME, 98% to Dems
#6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 97% to Dems
#7 National Education Assn, 92% to Dems
#8 Laborers Union, 92% to Dems
#9 Service Employees International Union, 95% to Dems
#10 Carpenters & Joiners Union, 89% to Dems
#11 Teamsters, 92% to Dems
#12 Communications Workers of America, 99% to Dems
#15 American Federation of Teachers, 98% to Dems
#16 United Auto Workers, 98% to Dems
#17 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union, 98% to Dems
...
#25 National Beer Wholesalers Assn
...
#57 Pfizer Inc -- the world's largest pharma company by sales.

In light of which, one might suspect that "web" was rather selectively spun.

I think the idea of matching the incumbent's funding with public money makes terrific sense. It wouldn't be perfect (there would be phony challengers) but overall I think we'd be better off.

What if Baucus, due to the millions he has taken from health care interests, were required to recuse himself from the debate? Likewise for everyone else--here Montana Max is only an example.

How would THAT change things?

Recusal of an official with even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a longstanding practice in the judicial branch. Judges with any connection whatsoever with either party to a case or to counsel, are required to recuse themselves from the case--even if there is no likelihood that the judge would in fact be biased. Lawyers are similarily enjoined from representing a client, if there is reason to think that they cannot do so fairly (the same law firm cannot represent both plaintiff and defendant; even if in two different and unrelated cases). Likewise, in many executive agencies, there is the prinicple that overt conflict of interest be avoided.

Of course, the legislative function is different than the judicial and (non-elected) executive functions; starting with the need to run for election. Elections cost money, and there is a need to balance the right of citizens (including institutions) to participate, and the desire to avoid bribery and such. But why not impose a rule that asserts a conflict of interest exists, any time a contribution to a candidate exceeds some statutory amount?

How about once again limiting the powers of Congress to those enumerated in the Constitution? That way Congress wouldn't have the power to A) Make any kind of laws affecting the corporations/interests that give money or B) Extort the money from the corporations/interests.

Congress, and the Federal Government in general, was never meant to have this much influence in our lives. By nature politicians are power-hungry, and keep expanding their powers but only because we let them.

David Walker (former head of the GAO, currently with the Peter G. Peterson foundation) has been floating this idea as well -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020358500457439262069354263...

"If people can't vote in a district not their own, should we allow them to spend unlimited money on behalf of someone across the country?"

Mr. Walker's idea of restricting donations to voters rather than 'constituents' would also prohibit corporate donations as well.

Of course, anything along these lines would take a constitutional amendment.

Publicly funded political campaigns won't happen so that isn't a solution. But limiting campaign a Congressman's or challenger's campaign spending to only those funds raised with in their district or state would go a long way towards taking money out of politics.

This would not end independent efforts to sway voters and it would likely increase independent campaigns. As political speech it is necessary. But light and fresh air can be introduced by requiring all organizations that run any sort of advertising campaign during an election cycle to prominently post on their websites, the names, addresses and amount of all contributors within ten days of the receipt of the contribution. Fear of ridicule might starve the most whacked out organizations for funds.