I may sound a little naive right now but what about when people just simply agree with a politicians ideals? is it a crime to support someone with whom you agree with? your saying a few hundred max per person but it can take thousands to get an advertisement on television, not to mention reserving spots to hold announcements, travel fair, renting out buildings a campaign headquarters and even just local branches for the campaign. President Obama spent over a billion in his presidential campaign alone, Romney just short of a billion on his failed campaign. i mean you would need thousands and thousands of people donating the max amount to reach half of that and you expect that to fund campaigns? Are you trying to make congress singularly old rich white guys or maybe snotty trust-fund millionaire kids? cause i don't know about you (and if you have reached this success level congratulations , you should legitimately be proud cause i respect the people who have gotten there) but im middle class and i don't have nearly enough money to fund a political campaign, let alone one that has a bare minimum of 50% chance of failing.
No, like i said in an earlier post, I understand where you are going for, im not naive enough to think all politicians are perfect and don't take bribes, but to restrain funding to political campaigns is the equivalent of denying a person the right to give to charity. No, what we need to do is have a constant surveillance on monetary movement to and from politicians, along with a separate, non-partisan comity specifically looking into any claims or possibility of bribes based off of both the first comity findings and and reports brought forward. This might sound like more people to get bribed but some barrier is better than none, i will agree with that at least.