Over the years, dozens--if not hundreds--of books have been written documenting some of the more visible cases of campaign finance abuse, while the newspaper and magazine index of reporting on this topic is virtually infinite. Among numerous Web sites that track and document this issue, one of the most current is www.opensecrets.org, operated by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, DC.
Campaign finance corruption has always been present in American democracy, the difference now being that the sums involved are exponentially greater than they ever were in the past, both in terms of the amount of money the government spends, and the vast sums that must be raised by candidates to remain competitive.
The US Government is the largest single economic enterprise in human history, collecting and spending over three trillion dollars every year. Not unreasonably, we can expect that our elected officials responsible for spending this money will be approached by people and companies seeking government business, and this is as it should be - we've elected them to manage our tax dollars. Also not unreasonably, those seeking government business will ask the question: what can be done to influence these elected officials? What is it that they want and need, that we can provide, that will focus their attention and guide their decision-making in our direction?
As long as the answer to that question is "campaign contributions," our elected officials are never going to represent the voters, because we are not the key to their re-election. They're going to represent the people who give them the huge chunks of money they need for their next campaign - they are the key to re-election.
If this system is so corrupt and so contrary to the public interest, why has it lasted so long? The answer is that political incumbents, the group that would need to effect any meaningful change in the way we fund election campaigns, hold an overwhelming advantage in campaign fundraising over their non-incumbent challengers. Using the leverage and privilege of their public offices, incumbents typically raise six to nine times more campaign contributions than their challengers, so asking them to replace private campaign contributions with a more equitable system is asking them to surrender their huge incumbent advantage. It's a non-starter; it's never going to happen.