the u.s. should switch to a pre-set budget for campaigning

There are a couple of problems with the idea you have proposed:

1) If there is no monetary influence then either a) candidates will be barred from purchasing TV and radio ad time or b) the stations will have to give away their air time for free. Both are bad. Without the natural filter of money and monetary backing to weed out the field many more people would run for office and have to get ads within their set budget or not get ads at all. This would be a confusing jumble of small information that would strain the information industry.

2) This restricts the freedom of the people running. If a person has the money to put into a campaign then they should be able to. The US government can't tell people who they can or cannot give their money to, who they can or cannot support etc. This would be a massive violation of political rights, something this country holds sacred.

3) There will always be monetary influence. Barring legal monetary transactions will only open the door to seedier areas of money that wouldn't be as easily watched or controlled by the government thereby boosting corruption in elections.

This idea you have set forth is a poor one.

The court has held that you cannot cap the amount of money spent in a campaign:

Also in 2006, the Supreme Court held that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of Buckley vs. Valeo [1]

It is unconstitutional to limit spending for campaigns because it infringes upon our First Amendment rights to free speech. Political contributions have been established by the courts as a form of political speech and is thereby protected by the constitution. Such actions are unconstitutional and therefore cannot and should not be undertaken.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Forfeit.