Ben Smith of Politico has a story on a new database that will allow independent expenditure groups to indirectly coordinate their political efforts:

The Atlas Project, a well-connected consulting firm, has launched a private website that compiles, in unusual detail, the sort of information campaigns and outside groups rely on – everything from lists of key players in a state to past election results and current television ads. Its most novel feature, though, may be a private, centralized hub to which independent groups can upload the mailings and canvassing data that they’re barred from directly sharing with campaigns – but which campaigns can, the group says, legally view on the site.
“We spend a lot of time tripping on each other, bumping into each other, and wasting resources,” said Atlas president Steve Rosenthal, a veteran of Democratic independent efforts and of labor politics. “This is a legal and permissible way to share information, and it has the potential to revolutionize the way campaigns and outside groups do their work.”

The book I’ve found most useful and clarifying on this broad subject is Better Parties, Better Government by Peter J. Wallison and Joel Gora. Though I’ve disagreed with Wallison about some issues in the past, e.g., his views regarding the origins of the financial crisis, he and his co-author make a convincing case that the most effective way to improve our campaign finance system is to free the political parties and thus to strengthen them relative to other actors. The thesis of the book is that the fundamental problem with the existing campaign finance system, shaped by decades of efforts to reduce the influence of money on political outcomes, has been a series of legal roadblocks that strengthen incumbents at the expense of challengers.

The most effective way to change this pro-incumbent system is to lift the restrictions on political parties, allowing them to become both the principal vehicles for political fundraising and the principal sources of campaign funds for their candidates. This would improve funding resources for challengers, strengthen the parties, reduce the appearance of corruption inherent in the current candidate-centered fundraising system, and ultimately strengthen American democracy.

Even after a series of wave elections, the advantages incumbents enjoy remain considerable. Yet the parties have grown weaker as complex regulations have crippled their ability to raise funds. Candidates increasingly rely on independent expenditure groups, essentially shadow parties that are subject to none of accountability mechanisms that work tolerably well for political parties. Indeed, one could argue that weak parties contribute to a loss of democratic responsiveness.

Some see the fact that individual candidates have a great deal of autonomy under our current system as a virtue. e.g., it potentially permits a somewhat wider range of political voices. It does, however, have a serious downside. After a wave election, the legislative minority is at risk of becoming captive to the most diehard partisans, who might push the party far away from the views of the median voter, thus endangering future electoral prospects (particularly in presidential years, when turnout tends to markedly higher). Stronger parties could serve as a counterweight to this tendency, as the party apparatus would be mindful of the need to appeal to marginal voters and marginal districts and would thus be inclined to exert some discipline on candidates who stray too far from a viable political message.

Another problem with the existing system is that self-funded candidates or candidates who for whatever reason have access to a large fundraising base have an inordinate advantage over impecunious candidates, some of whom may possess other virtues. Well-funded parties could channel resources to these candidates who don’t have their own extensive fundraising networks — e.g., young military veterans, public servants, small business owners, etc. This could improve the quality of the candidate pool.

But instead we’ve created a bonanza for lawyers and groups like the Atlas Project.