I always thought the campaign finance laws were ridiculous.
Scenario 1: An individual likes everything one politician stands for and wants to help him/her get into the White House by donating some money. It doesn't matter the dollar amount. At least in a society that claims it is supposed to be for the people by the people, this shouldn't even be restricted as it is.
Scenario 2: Banks, Corporations, Unions, and other populist public interest groups, can donate to the campaigns and political organizations this politician belongs to. Never directly to the individual themselves.
Conclusion: Isn't it the same thing? and should it just be reformed to reflect scenario one instead of scenario two. So that the 1% can stop hiding behind the cloak of fundraising. So that we as a public can see where each individual truly has allegiances to? I'm not saying that this will automatically happen if individuals were allowed to donate to specific candidates but I think it just makes more sense then setting up small shell organizations to funnel money to friends of politicians who can easily allow them to take whatever the heck they wanted out of said fund. Sure, it's illegal but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen under some of these umbrellas. EX: Bob McDonnel/Ron Paul.
PS: I don't think corporations should be excluded from campaigns anymore than populist groups. I just think individuals shouldn't be excluded either.
To me it's one of the most common over-looked problems in DC and number one cause of polarization.