Bad idea.

Scratch that.  Most horrible idea ever!

At that point, you would literally put the party in the candidate's pockets.  The party could change a candidate's salary based on his or her policies, making sure that all people who vote for individuals inherently vote disingenuously.  You could only vote for parties instead, which entrenches the government to its old policies.

That was much more simple than what I said. 

Sadly over here the idea is being developed that donations are de facto corruption. I say sadly because that's one sure way for voters to shape the choices that appear on the ballot to be voted on. If you can fund Mr Right better than Mr Wrong during the primaries, mr right will be the nominee of the party in the election.

Your idea Fool makes too much sense to be tolerated. If the pols ever accept they're actually the least necessary part of the civil service they'd have what we call a "[poop]fit"
If America shrank the House of Representatives by half and cut the Senate to 1 person for each state it would cost half what it does and run or not run just as well. But they would sooner fire every licensed professional on the federal payroll than admit it.

letting parties pay would bring forth party politics. One should vote persons, not parties. Else you only have 2 real options.

*edit*
ok I just noticed zarf said it already

"Even if the constituency also had the option of funding a person directly?

Yes it will possibly raise corruption, where corruption is donating money to a politician for them to act in your favour, something that happens anyway... Party donations at election times?

Also people standing now never run on individual platforms, but always party ones, maybe with a little tweaking here and there to meet the needs of their electorate. However with direct funding someone could theoretically rise up, be an independent and gain the support and thus the donations of an electorate and freeze out the other parties who would have to either use money from other areas to fund a campaign or write that electorate off.

Maybe to make it more complicated, the money currently being used to pay politicians is divided by the number of citizens on the electoral role and each person gets that money put aside and given a ticket that allows them to control who that money goes too. They then can choose which candidate or party to fund and how much of it goes to who. Maybe people could choose to hand over a weeks worth at a time, or a months, or a years or whatever..."

Politicians in USA already earn to much.

I think politicians are paid far too much and have far too many perks and can claim scandalous amounts as "expenses", but surely this kind of thing would mean that politicians would be forced to do exactly what the party donors said, otherwise they do not get paid! Ultimately the most important donors will be the people or organisations which donate more money, which in turn will mean rich people and companies who are willing to donate to political parties will have greater power. Politicians pay should be reduced but should come out of tax payers money so that they don't have any conflicts of interest when voting on something which may affect party donors. I would actually be inclined to move away from the need for party donations at all, and have campaign costs come out of tax money too. That way, there can be no corruption accusations or suspicious donations such as the "cash for honours" scandals which we have been having in the UK. It can also mean that campaign costs can be limited to something sensible, say

How about the concept (horribly complicated and unworkable as it is) of giving each citizen their share of the MPs salary and allowing them to distribute it as they see fit. This takes away the bad part of the scheme where people only listen to the rich.

The concept of the politicians having to do what their constituents want is really what I am going with here, so yes for a set definition it is sanctioned corruption, esp "where corruption is donating money to a politician for them to act in your favour." As that is sort of a good thing in my mind, or at least the flip side it, having a politician act in your favour because you control his purse strings. How honest would politicians become if their every action would have an immediate consequence, no more once every [insert appropriate number] years will we get random promises that may or may not play out, and for us to have no power to act on the failed promises till that time period is over, which is generally long enough for every transgression to be forgotten, except those done in election year.

It seems the only thing between my scheme and my dream is the fact that rich people get more of a say.... so limit the amount you can donate to a person? Election year campaigns could still work differently, maybe, or not... but giving people power back into their own hands to force a politician to act as they should seems good in my book and there must be a way to make it work...

Its a good thinking excercise fool but unworkable. Maybe its a coincidence but I see you moving towards a direct democracy with every step.(correct me if I'm wrong) Maybe one day it would be affordable to have a system that comes close to it but I think not right now. I don't deny the huge benefits.