It's been talked about before, pretty widely in fact. There was even a supposed compromise made several years ago, called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (affectionately dubbed "McCain-Feingold" after its two principle sponsors). It didn't go far enough. Not by half. It doesn't even come close to one of the principle problems that America now faces.
America, for all its flaws then as now, was built on the principle of "one man, one vote." This is unassailable. It's the reason we have equal representation in terms of both the House and the electoral college, so that everyone's vote is worth the same impact.
That's always been the ideal, but it's never really been true.
The history of limiting the vote of certain segments of the population, both overt and subtle, has been particularly sordid. No news there. But monetary control of practically every election has proven a much more effective means of maintaining certain interests control practically everything in Washington. Read this for a brief history of money in politics.
What this influence clearly means is that the impact on elections and on candidates is inherently unequal. One person does not have one vote. It's true that individuals are now limited to donating $2,300 to a candidate, but they can donate that to as many candidates as they like and donate to other organizations like the RNC and the DLC which end up giving their money to those same candidates (see here for the whole list of donation limits). Corporations are technically not allowed to give money to candidates, but they do through the establishment of PACs.
What this all has led to is a situation where voters are increasingly disenfranchised and have lost control over everything except for the choice between the two candidates they are permitted to vote for.
What Must Happen
Campaigns should be funded by the treasury. Candidates must apply for the money, based on a certain baseline level of monetary support from a certain percentage of the total population they're to represent. Each willing donor will give the same low amount to fund the beginning of the campaign, around $10-20. Think of it as a sort of petition but with each signer putting up a bit more than their name. This is in essence the exploratory phase, but in this one it's real. It will determine if there is the relevant support to continue the process. Any donations beyond this introductory amount are strictly prohibited. The amount given through the election fund will be set at an agreed-upon level for a typical election for that position (for instance, a campaign for a New York senate seat would get substantially more than one for a seat from Maine). Each candidate will be given a set amount of air-time, and if they so choose they may purchase more. In addition candidates may use an unlimited amount of their own money, not additional funds raised, for their campaign. However, their opponents will be given a similar amount: not equal, but in the area of 60-75%.
Arizona is a good example of a state that has instituted a similar program of public funding, and so far it has been successful (click here for a good debunking of common talking points against such a program).
The elections are ours, and we must take them back. Leaving the cost of running for election to special interests does nothing but limit the number of voices in our public debates, decrease accountability, corrupt our leaders, and move us farther from the key principle of our republic: representation. Most of our leaders stopped representing us long ago. It's clear we need to make them represent us again.
I'm on board.