.
After viewing this Candidate Review, compiled by Democrats who understand both scandal and humor, I have come up with the perfect solution to Campaign Finance Reform.

You can raise as much money as you want, from whomever you want. You just cannot spend one dime more than your opponent. The rest you get to keep for yourself.

http://www.tnr.com/gallery/popup.html?topic=GOP&g=0&p=1

.

and who would enforce this?

I see it as self enforcing. If you get to keep the money you solicit as bribes then the incentive is to waste as little as possible on the campaign. Perhaps you'd need some mechanism, say, Candidate X spends $1000, Candidate Y spends $1500. Candidate Y must write a check to Candidate X for $500. Spending reports get filed weekly on a cash basis - just list the checks written.

What I found striking in the original link was how viability and money in the bank were deemed equivalent. That is what got me thinking that we need a reverse incentive. The winner, and therefor viability, needs to be the one who spends the least.

Since they are criminals by nature one easy way to do this is to tell them that they no longer have to hide what they steal. They just get to keep it.

In fact, the most successful would be the ones who raise a huge amount of money and then drop out of the race at the last minute.

Just as we pay farmers not to farm, why don't we pay politicians not to run for office.