This contribution limit is not a simple issue. If we set fundraising limits, incumbents and rich folks will always have the advantage during an election. If you're the rich incumbent, then nobody will be able to oppose you because you're already well known and you're deeper pocket can always outspend opposition who's handicapped by the limit.
If we don't set limits, of course rich people can still have the advantage, it's like a no win situation..., but at least a popular or slick politician could still get a shot if he's good at raising money. (Whether it's direct from people or rich corporations...)
I think they really should just ban fund raising altogether... and just allocate portion of the govt fund to help people know the candidates. Like help them set up websites or something like that. Make sure the politicians spend time on the job doing the job right to raise your chance of re-election rather than just all over the place trying to raise money. Especially in this digital age. Who needs all these flyers or signs or TV ads? But anyway, even if that were the case, how do we really enforce politicians to not accepting money? Politicians can always be 'bought' under the table... Anyway, can never completely stop corruption, but I still think it's probably wiser to completely ban fundraising in the future. If you want to get to know the candidates better, go read their websites or something. There'd also be no more negative ads!