Jim, I read one of your articles and I can see that you’re passionate on this topic. I agree with many of your points, but there is an enforcement problem, even if you managed to get an amendment to the Constitution.
I’m pretty sure that the founders did not contemplate what passes for modern campaign finance when they wrote the Constitution. And your points made about outside money only buttresses my idea that so-called “originallists” appear to be happily silent on the idea that the House should be dependent on the people alone, neither richer nor the poorer.
I did have a look at Sanders’ campaign finance sources, yes, I agree with you that much of his money came from outside the state. I’d say that outside money only increased once he became a household name. And while it can be said that people from other states bought his seat in the House and then the Senate, he has held rather steadily to small contributions to avoid the temptation of big money. I still think he’s more principled than most of his peers on both sides of the aisle despite the outside money.
He has also made a point of tying his opponents to the big money they get from elites and wealthy business interests. That’s why he’s been winning elections for decades. Besides, I want someone in the Senate who is at least willing to discuss the corrupting influence of money.
So, while I agree with you in principle, I think we have a ways to go before we can restrict funding in the manner you prescribe. The political will simply isn’t there, yet. But if such a proposition, an enforceable proposition came up on the ballot, I’d have to wonder if I wouldn’t want some help from the outside.