Political Researchers pretty much have two theories on campagin funding.
1) You only need "enough" money, any money after that is actually extra and doesn't change votes, or at least not enough to be statistically significant.
2) Money matters, but ONLY for challengers, for incumbents, money is more or less pointless. You only need money to get your message out... everyone already knows the incumbent.
Honestly i think the EXACT opposite should be true. Get rid of campaign spending limits BUT require donors names be public record. There's more then enough money to win on any side of the political field. People who were ghastly afraid of Romney buying the election were quite surprised to find that it was Obama who had the huge spending lead.
Money follows the politicians based on their popularity.
