RE: Choice 3: What does it really help?

[Ken Diamond <kenken5001@yahoo.com>]

"A challenging newcomer candidate wouldn't necessarily
                      benefit from unlimited campaign funding"

Of course it wouldn't "necessarily" benefit any particular candidate but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't for some. Those not immersed in the world of political organizing, a world dominated by interest groups, have a difficult time raising  a sufficient amount of money to be a viable candidate from the number of sources that limits make necessary.  But there many decent people outside of that world, maybe because they are decent. I sometimes think of the world of politicians as an example of adverse selection. 

 Unlimited contributions would allow a few wealthy individuals to provide the resources for some political outsiders to become viable candidates just the way it now does for the very rich in their personal pursuit of office. Does that mean its a good idea? Like any choice the results are likely to be mixed and the inevitable forces of human nature that reforms are trying to curb will exploit any system, and increasing so as the knowledge of how to do it becomes more common. 

But like I offered before, I imagine that the constitutional right to limit such individual contributions to other's campaigns means that granting the option could be conditioned to an agreement to abide by voluntary spending limits. And if those limits are connected to the resources of the top opponent, then the incentive to pursue the huge advantages of money might be reduced.