I agree totally, but I doubt if either party will be very enthusiastic about this. This is something they all agree on, and why bi-partisan efforts to implement this are bi-partisanly resisted.

I love the usual rebuttal to your argument, that providing campaign contributions to politicians is a form of "free speech" and constitutionally protected. There's a way around this too, You can make all the campaign contributions you want to a third agent, which in turn will give your money to the politician of your choice, BUT, without telling him where it came from. Bribery can't work when the recipient does not know who the donor is.

Another alternative is to require the media to carry a certain number of commercial minutes, or column-inches, for each candidate, which they are free to use in any way they like. There are precedents for this, media are already required to donate "public service" time for worthy causes, and they could get a break on their corporate taxes for this loss in advertising. I don't think the media would go for this, they are businesses too and they get rich carrying campaign ads.

I suspect nothing like this is going to happen though, because the current system is too profitable for both the politicians and the interests
which service them. In my opinion, the effect of political contributions on political campaigns is the single greatest enemy to democracy that exists.