It all started, as far as I am concerned, with Felix at the Clock Infirmary in Ellsworth, Maine. That was where I first heard the suggestion that the best way to deal with rotten political TV commercials was to ban them outright, the way we did tobacco ads so many years ago. That was last summer, in Felix's quaint shop on Water Street, where I had gone to get a battery replaced in my wristwatch.

I dismissed the idea out of hand. But it kept popping up. First Mike Royko had a character in his column out of Chicago make the suggestion. Then Molly Ivins, political commentator extraordinare from Texas, mentioned it. The same idea from three out of the four borders of our country within weeks of each other. Were we about to experience a 100th monkey phenomenon?

You know, the idea grows on you.

Consider the standard campaign finance reform proposals. All of them would reduce the money available to campaigns – eliminate PACs, lower maximum contributions, use public funds with a spending cap.

None of those suggestions will change the way campaigns are conducted. All of them will put greater internal pressures on campaigns, and will require greater vigilance. Deception and distortion will still run rampant.

There is another way – reducing real costs. Eliminating paid political TV ads would do that, big-time, in one fell swoop. Media buys are the single biggest expense in campaigns, swallowing up thousands to millions of dollars. With an outright ban on TV ads, the cost of campaigning would plummet.

It's a simple idea, and easy to verify. After all, how can one hide a TV commercial? And consider the dynamics, what would happen internally if the only thing to change were the banning of political ads from television?

Suddenly, politicians would not be able to buy their image. Media manipulators would not be able to create a candidate. We would be spared both negative and nasty, and dull and boring commercial breaks.

Candidates would be forced to reach out to voters and debate other candidates. Political reporters would have to cover the issues, instead of rating the hot-shot productions of one studio hire against another. TV would be forced to look at politics as news, instead of a cash cow.

Political parties would have to learn how to network all over again – people talking to other people, discussing ISSUES. What a concept!

Add to that two other cost-cutting measures, ones dealing with postage and phones, and we would have the makings of an efficient, and really open system of electing our leaders.

Did you know national and state political party headquarters can mail at the cheap, non-profit rate, but campaigns must pay the higher second-class business rate? Silly rule. Campaigns are non-profit by definition. Non-profit rates would cut the cost of mailings nearly in half. It ought to be allowed.

Phone companies should be required to set special low rates for candidates within the confines of their districts. Not all over the country, just at home. We should make it as easy as possible for candidates to actually reach out and touch their constituents.

Just think, candidates having the luxury of campaigning, not needing to spend half their time raising money in the unsavory places we worry about. Small donations and grass-roots volunteers making the difference, because there are no big-ticket items to buy.

Sounds like the makings for a real political revival. Just might work. As the 99th monkey, I say we give it a try.