To put that in perspective - the average Congressional district has around 750,000 people in it. 3% of that is 22,500 people. It costs about $2/signature to hire people to petition, so under your framework, there would be a $45,000 upfront cost for petitioning alone before a candidate would have access to the same resources as major candidates. With a $200 limit per donor, nobody who is not part of a major party will be able to raise that much money.If the candidate's party or the candidate wins an election, they will get public financing or if the candidate can collect the signatures of somewhere around 2 to 3% of the registered voting population's signatures in a petition than they will get it too. This will be a boon for smaller parties and put them on a more equal playing field.
Let's set that aside for a minute - when these candidates qualify for public financing, how much are you going to give them? Remember that all of this money is coming out of our pockets.
Pretend that this decision and the 35 years of jurisprudence explicitly defining money as speech never happened. How it would work in your ideal world?Unfortunately the supreme court threw a wrench in this one and it perverts free speech to be tainted with money, so I haven't come up with a good answer yet.