Of course, that's the rub with Citizens United and spending limits in general, how and to what extent does it bump up against the First Amendment? Also, how does one actually create workable limits that aren't simply worked around as is wont to happen?
While I certainly won't pretend to have all, or even many of the answers, I can still say that there are many problems nonetheless. I feel that there has been a corrupting effect by the amount and kinds of money permeating politics today that greatly distort the abstract one man, one vote ideal. Well-funded entities, be they individuals, corporations, unions, PACs and other lobby groups can give them a hugely disproportionate voice in today's politics. It would be naive to believe that money doesn't inevitably buy power and thus, those with the most money will have the most (political) power and their particular interests will prevail over those that might be reflective of a broader swath of the electorate.
Again though, those are the whines but not the answers. Perhaps something along the lines you suggest, such as capped individual campaign contributions, might indicate a direction to something that would more closely resemble a one man, one vote ideal -- elevating the individual citizen to the preeminent role in our political system. Of course, that's even presuming that is the ideal (I tend to think it is). I think Citizens United was a step in the wrong direction in this regard, elevating and entrenching corporations, unions, and PACs over the preeminence of the individual voter.
While there are likely no perfect solutions, I'd like to think there are some less imperfect ones.
Last edited by Rhumb; 03-19-2013 at 12:24 PM.