Reading about Obama's decision to forego taxpayer funding of his campaign during the general election I came upon this comment:

After this election, we need a bi-partisan commission with a co-chair from both parties to draft meaningful campaign finance reform. This in tandem with another bi-partisan commision to sort out and shorten the primary season. We’re spending far too much time and far too much money on this process.

Where to start?

The only campaign finance reforms I support are those that allow unfettered freedom for the electorate. Scrap the laws on the books and allow any and all American citizens to donate to the candidate or party of their choice, whether in cash or time or services. Merely require each candidate to itemize all donations on-line on an official, publicly accessible website as they come in. Let each voter decide if $100 Billion from one man or one group means the candidate has been bought. As for PACs and 527's, they are Americans practicing their unalienable rights to Free Speech , Free Association, and Petitioning the Government and as such should be unregulated and celebrated. As should single issue advocacy groups and voting record check lists. What we need is more participation, not less. More information and opinion; not less.

The Internet is a great gift to political activism. It allows anyone to broadcast their views, to find like-minded people, and to band together, to excercise our Rights as well as to inform our fellow citizens without any cost above access to a computer with an internet connection. This should be the era of Freedom of Speech. Everyone on the internet ( and indeed off ) should have the same protections- the same rights- as every newspaper. It is more than disturbing that I am not stating the obvious when I remind Americans that being paid to report or publish your political preferences is not the basis for Freedom of the Press; disseminating your opinion is.

bi-partisan commission with a co-chair from both parties

First off, there are more than two parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties have dominated American politics for so long that too many Americans have forgotten they are not required for governance. These two parties are also united in their determination to maintain their domination. Because of their power, taxpayers pay for these private groups to choose their candidates, not just through the boondoggle Public Campaign Financing funds, and taxpayer money for their so-called Conventions, but for the primaries! The states which use taxpayer money to support these private groups are also giving them an imprimatur; an official governmental seal of approval that I find appalling and which the ACLU would oppose if it were anyone but these two groups.

Second, allowing these two parties to join together to decide the rules for elections obviously authorizes them to continue choosing rules that block any other groups from getting any power. See Above.

This in tandem with another bi-partisan commision to sort out and shorten the primary season.

Each party does, and should, choose its means of selecting its nominee. The government should have no input or say whatsoever and no parties should be allowed to use taxpayer money to do so.

The primary season, IMHO, should not be shorter. While it is not my business, I think the longer season allows more party members to participate and is more informative for those of us who do not belong to the party. The idea that we should spend less time picking the people who will rule us is, frankly, scary. Same with the idea that we spend too much money on it. I do not suggest that spending an infinite amount of time and money is optimal, but shouldn't we at least be willing to spend the same amount of time on who will make our laws and policies as we do watching TV? The same amount as we pay for that TV?