...might I humbly suggest saving unborn children? From NY Times, Q & A from Stephen Dubner and Steven D. Levitt, authors of "Freakonomics":
Q. 10. Based on your observations of human nature and the actions and reactions in which we engage, do you believe that there is a way to end the pernicious influence of "Big Money" in our political campaigns — or is this a feature of democracy that will always be with us?
— Alexander Clemens, San Francisco
A. To be honest, we do not think Big Money is as pernicious as others do. In "Freakonomics," we show how campaign spending does not affect elections nearly as much as most people think. And there is not that much evidence that politicians vote differently as a result of donations (many donations go to politicians who are already sympathetic to Big Money's causes). Our hunch is that Big Money already knows that money doesn't matter that much in politics. Why do we say that? Because there are relatively low limits on how much Political Action Committees can contribute to campaigns, yet hardly any PAC's max out on these limits. Relative to the government budget, campaign spending is tiny. We believe that Big Money has figured out they don't get a very good return on contributions, so they don't give that much.