We would still be voting for our candidates but we'd be voting based on our bank accounts. Not one person, one vote. It was nice to see that the average contribution to Obama was only $80-something but, along with a lot of $10 contributions were still a relative handful of very large contributions from individuals who were essentially buying their way into at least a bargaining platform (I'm taking the more optimistic view) with the government.
For so long, I have looked at the amount of money spent on campaigning and kept wondering why the same people who are so willing to dole out big bucks to get a certain person into office are so unwilling to spend a small percentage of that amount to take care of public services like education and public infrastructure. If paying another $500/year in taxes that could be used for important projects would be so damaging, why is paying $1000s/year to keep someone in office who won't raise your taxes by a fraction of that not a problem?