We're going at this all wrong. The Founders surely did not envision a tenured political class, who would serve in gerrymandered seats for 40 years then pass them on to their offspring. A good series of reforms would include term limits, cutting the salaries of congressmen, cutting their staffs and perhaps returning to the original procedure of senators being elected by state legislatures. As it is, congress is so busy doling out pork and raising money to get reelected, they don't have time to focus on the big issues. Even when they do, their entire focus is political. How will it affect my reelection? How will it affect the party? Not, what is best for the country in the long run? The way to deal with money is disclosure. With the internet, it is easy to publish the names of all donors in real time. Then you can see who is being bought. I see nothing inherently wrong with some rich donor supporting a candidate, provided everyone knows that is the case. Ads by specially created groups, think Swift Boat Vets, MoveOn, etc, are troublesome only in whether or not to require disclosure of membership. Voters' ability to assess the bias of a group is limited if they don't know who funds it. On the other hand, there is some virtue in allowing people to make their case without exposing themselves to retaliation by the Clinton IRS. On balance, I would not require these groups to make their donors or members public. It's a loophole, but there are competing interests.
Conservative bloggers are far more lethal than the ball- less ones. Just look at what Swift Votes did for the Bush campaign.