There are 250 workdays in a year.  At eight hours a day, that is two thousand working hours.  If a Congressional candidate made a full time job out of campaigning during the two years between elections, and spent fifteen minutes per constituent household, they could personally visit with sixteen thousand families.  Since a House member only needs 50% +1 votes to win, then you could have Congressional districts with thirty-two thousand households where the candidates would not have to rely on media money to get elected.

Article 1, Section 2, Part 3 of the US Constitution stipulates the size of Congressional districts.   The original drafts suggested one  Representative for every forty thousand, but George Washington supported the revision of one representative for every thirty thousand on the grounds that it would increase the legitimacy of the new government to have a sufficient number of Representatives to support regular contact between the citizens and their Congressmen.

So reducing the roll of money in politics is as simple as revisiting the wisdom of the founding fathers.  One Representative for every thirty-two thousand households in a nation of over one hundred million households means the House of Representatives would have over three thousand members.  This may seem an impossible number to make work, but consider this.  The current four hundred and thirty-five members of Congress have personal and committee staffs that number over eight thousand.  In other words, it takes thousands of people to do the legislative work of a country as big as the US, but instead of electing them directly and holding them accountable to constituents they know personally, the Congress voted to cap their own membership.  This decision in 1911 was justified in the debate by citing the physical constraints of the room in which they met.  So instead of building a bigger room, or a closed circuit TV network so that accountable Representatives could actively participate in the governing of our country, the Congress made a choice that destined the elected Representatives to a life of full-time fund raising and left the governing to their unelected unaccountable staffs and the DC money men who trade media money for votes.

If you think making the House seven times more representative and accountable is too big a leap for a single cycle, how moving to one thousand Representatives.  The subsequent reapportionment debate and the idea of fundamentally moving the federal government back toward the original vision of the founding fathers will certainly reengage a great number of the voluntarily disenfranchised.  So ask the Congressional candidates you meet in 2008 if they support expanding the size of the House.  Term limits are unconstitutional, but the current limit on the size of the House certainly violates the spirit of the Constitution and a move to expand the size of the House to at least one thousand would have no problem in the Supreme Court.