Public funding of campaigns? To date, most Americans have opposed federally-funded campaigns below the presidential level. Concerning the parties, Democrats have historically favored them, while Republicans have not. Given a lack of voter support for public funding, don't look for equal, public funding anytime soon.

Prevent 'special interests' from donating to campaigns? First, the nation would have to define the term 'special interests.' Americans don't like 'special interest' influence but there's no national consensus as to what constitutes a special interest, as opposed to a legitimate or noble interest group. And as one might deduce, the political parties differ too. The Democrats believe corporate America, big oil, and certain defense contractors are special interests. The Republicans believe unions, teachers, and certain social service groups are special interests. Given the lack of agreement regarding what constitutes a 'special interest', Congress is unlikely to pass a measure reforming them, absent one-party control of government.

Eliminate the potential for quid pro quo? Most research demonstrates that while campaign contributions buy access to a Congressman or President, the donations do not buy their votes. Each elected official faces a multitude of pressures and demands, and it's simplistic to think that one lobby can 'buy' an elected official's vote.

Get the law firms out of the process? Again, 'law firm' is a pretty vague term. See the point above about 'special interests.' The Democrats would want to ban law firms representing corporations; the Republicans, the trial lawyers and those representing unions, the environment, etc.

In sum, money and 'special interests' are likely to remain features of U.S. campaigns and politics because Americans don't agree on the merits of campaign spending, nor on interest groups, and what they'd replace money and lobbying with.

Further, these differences form the basis for the substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

All of which suggests that until voters vote in one party to control all branches of government, in particular a president with large, same-party majorities in each chamber of Congress, we're not likely to see substantive changes to campaign spending and lobbying laws.

Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. Presidency and the U.S. economy.