David Frum argues that reforming campaign finance law is one necessity:

Political money now comes in two basic envelopes, one transparent, one opaque. The transparent money is money whose source is disclosed to the Federal Elections Commission. The non-transparent money is raised and spent by political entities that need disclose nothing. You’d think we’d favor the transparent envelope. But no.

The transparent money is hedged with difficulties: you have to raise it in increments of $2400, each donor is subject to a cap of his total giving for the cycle, etc. The non-transparent money is not only secret, but also limitless. The next step to real reform would be to make it easier for donors to give to parties – and for parties to support candidates. If we had a system whereby a wealthy person could give $1 million to the RNC or DNC, which then distributed the money among the most electable candidates, we’d accomplish two things: we’d liberate candidates from spending so much of their time fundraising, and we’d also allow parties to impose some discipline on their weirdos and outliers. 

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.