Ideally, campaigns should be paid for by voters rather than big-moneyed interests. Realistically, some elections are too expensive for a voter-sized campaign contribution to have any effect. My contributions are going to go to races where they will matter.

Let's go over the price list.

Running for U.S. senator in our state costs 8 to 12 million dollars. At least, that's what the serious candidates spent last time around.

Senators are important: They confirm Supreme Court justices, vote on all our laws, etc. But not only is 8 to 12 million out of my price league, the number is so big that my contribution won't even make a dent. I need a lower-cost race, one where my contribution might matter.

How about a congressman? In 2004, a couple of our state's successful congressional candidates kept spending down to half a mil, while others spent triple that. To a candidate who needs $1.5 million, my little contribution is going to be just too small to notice. I'm afraid federal candidates are out of my league.

So I've decided to make my campaign contributions to candidates running for state office. These campaigns are a whole lot cheaper! I've picked a state senator, a state representative, and a state supreme court race to contribute to. First some more numbers, then I'll tell you how I chose who got the money.

At the last general election, the average candidate for Washington state senate spent about $110,000. State house candidates averaged under $50,000. Running for the state legislature costs somewhere between one-hundredth and one-tenth the price of running for Congress.

Spending on Washington Supreme Court races was all over the map in 2004, with one winner spending $45,000 and another spending $540,000. In that latter race the big-spender garnered 52% of the vote; the loser by four percentage points spent only $155,000. In a tight race, money can decide the winner.

So state races are cheap enough that my small contribution might make a difference. But which race to contribute to? One approach is to pick a tight race where your contribution could help determine the winner. That gets you the most political bang-for-the-buck.

I did something a little different. I decided to use my contributions to send a message—two different messages in fact.

First, I made contributions to one representative and one senator. Both are incumbents in absolutely safe seats. I know that these contributions aren't going to affect the election. But I admire the work of both men, even though I think the legislature as a whole does a crummy job. (I'm particularly tired of the legislature's inability to make hard decisions.) These guys are honest and work for the best interest of the public. I guess you might call these "keep up the good work" contributions.

Second, I picked a state supreme court race to make a statement by finding out where the special-interest money is going and contributing to the other candidate. Judicial offices ought to be as separated from partisan politics as we can manage. Special interests—in particular certain business groups—have discovered that they can buy judges by getting someone elected to the bench who is pre-disposed to rule in their favor. That's part of the explanation for the large amount of money dumped into that pricey supreme-court race in 2004.

Unfortunately, election campaigns have to be paid for. If we want better representation, we're going to have to chip in a few bucks.

So pick a candidate and write a check. Your choices and the reasons for your choices will likely be different from mine. The important thing is that you do make a contribution to someone you think ought to go to Olympia.

Oh, and then next year you can send your legislator advice in a letter that begins "As a contributor to your campaign…"