Don Surber points out that campaign reform has made it almost impossible to get rid of incumbents, see Clean up Congress: Get rid of campaign "reform", Excerpt:

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment. Justices were all over the place as they struck down Vermont's ridiculous Campaign Deform Act of 1997, which holds that a campaign contribution of more than $200 is somehow a bribe that will unduly influence a candidate... Re-election rates as high as 98% have been the rule over the last 30 years... These seats are safe in large part because it is so difficult to raise money to oppose them.

One solution may be publicly financed campaigns as in Portland:

the Oregonian, IN MY OPINION - CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Here's why Portland's elections offered a more level playing field. Typically, incumbents have a huge fundraising advantage over challengers. Not so in Portland this year. Incumbent City Council members Erik Sten and Dan Saltzman spent amounts on par with their challengers. While they both won their races, it was not because they had a big money advantage. In addition, the opportunity to run was available to anybody who qualified under the new system -- not just those who had ties to big-money private donors.

Read also Public Campaign - California Clean Money Campaign, Excerpt:

an initiative to establish full public financing for statewide elections qualified for the November 2006 California ballot. A pledge drive led by the California Nurses Association collected signatures from some 620,000 Californians.

But if every candidate has equal campaign funds we come to a different problem: suppose an incumbent should be re-elected precisely because he is a clean, decent politician who listens to the voice of the people? Shouldn't he get a little extra campaign money to insure his reelection? But giving candidates money directly does not guarantee that he will do the will of the majority. If a phone company gives William Jefferson (an assumed name - no real person intended) say, $100,000 to smooth the way for a deal and this Slick Willie (no relation to the Great Slick Willie) receives 20,000 donations of $10 each from his constituents not to do such a deal, which do you think Willie will do? It's easy to ignore a ten buck contributor, even if there are thousands of them.

These small contributors never get any value back for their campaign contributions. Indeed, anyone with a knowledge of politics knows that most candidates get money from both sides of an issue. Once candidates get your money, they're under no obligation to put through any laws that benefit you. What we need is a combination of public financing (so that all candidates are on the same level playing field) and a third party administrator of campaign contributions (to dole out funds to incumbents that have indeed fulfilled the wishes of their constituents).

Here's how it would work. Bernie's Campaign Contribution Center (BCCC), a Federally certified Third Party Campaign Fund Administrator, would receive all contributions from the local electorate. It would be illegal for anyone to give money directly to any candidate. It doesn't matter whether you are Republican Libertarian, or whatever that other party is.

When you donate ten bucks you check on a form where you want the money to go. Here is a sample form.

Total Donation: $10.00
Recipient: NJ Senate
How Allocated:
$2 decriminalize all drugs
$1 anti-death penalty
$1 pro-abortion
$3 leave Internet alone
$1 pro-flat tax
$1 pro-social security savings accounts
$1 anti-universal health care

Now BCCC would look at Senators from NJ and give money to incumbents for any appropriate legislation they vote yay on. So if BCCC collected $100,000 for pro-flat tax and Senator X voted yay and Senator Y voted nay then Senator X would get $100,000. If they both voted yay, then they would split the moneys. In this manner, contributors would, for the first time ever, know that politicians would ONLY receive contributions if they fulfilled the wishes of the donors. If neither candidate voted yay, the money would accumulate in a money market fund and be distributed to the first candidate that actually fulfilled the wishes of the contributing electorate.

So if no candidate this term actually fulfilled any of my voting preferences then no one gets a penny of my money. As it should be. The added benefit is that simply voting for a candidate does not give that candidate any better chance of being elected in the future, rather it's the politician's voting behaviour as an incumbent that determines his future campaign funds.

I know what you are thinking. Suppose you are an average black man and you want a Democrat to be elected because you were brought up under the misguided notion that Democrats in office are somehow in your best interest. Well I say screw that! If you put your money into issues that benefit you, then it doesn't matter what party is in office, it only matters what gets legislated. If campaign moneys only went to candidates that actually benefited constituents then we would find that most black votes should have gone to non-Democratic candidates. Why should an idiot be elected because voters do not know what is in their best interests?

All direct lobbying would end. If you want to bribe a politician do it in the open. If the public sees an oil company donating x dollars for open drilling on schoolyards then at least we know who is pushing for what. Perhaps the drilling will still get done, but it won't be in smoke-filled back-rooms. If corporations are doing dirty things their laundry will be exposed for all to see. I suspect that lobbying contributions handed over stealthily in the billions would be less likely to be done in open view.

I don't care if a Jew-hating, ex-convict, cross-dressing Communist gets elected as long as he votes for my issues. And if by chance, a candidate gets elected and does nothing for his electorate, then he will have zero contributions from them to keep himself in perpetual office. Then perhaps we can get over whether this party or that is better. Candidates who abide by our wishes will get re-elected regardless of party affiliation. As it should be.