The vast majority of citizens who can't back their political preferences with cash will continue to be spectators in the candidate selection process, while those with vast amounts of money will select our candidates and shape the political agenda. As the current soft money fundraising frenzy by candidates and political parties demonstrates, raising money in huge chunks does not diminish the time and energy spent chasing contributions. And since in the ACLU system a wealthy individual could give millions of dollars to support a challenger, the system could help the few challengers with such backing take on an incumbent. But in the end, any system that continues the private-funding arms race and imposes no limits on spending will benefit incumbents. Because incumbents' fundraising potential is more elastic than that of challengers.
Incumbents already hold power, so they are more attractive to donors seeking influence.
That's why despite the rhetoric of anti-reformers, incumbents do not love campaign finance reform and rarely pass it. It's voters, bypassing their state legislatures, who passed campaign finance reforms in the past five years in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, and Massachusetts. Candidates who don't want to be part of the money chase or whose political base does not consist of wealthy interests will continue to opt out. In contrast to your proposal, a campaign finance reform that includes spending limits, contribution limits, and public financing can address many of our the current ills. Spending caps end the arms race by putting a limit on the demand for money, undercut the incumbent advantage, and reduce the time candidates devote to fundraising.