Simple; eliminate "bundled" Campaign Contributions, and ALL campaign contributions are limited to $2300, per individual, per PAC, per Union, etc.
Take the millions that are collected via bundlers, lobbyists, etc., and limit EACH 501 to a contribution equal to what an individual is limited to. ONLY single $2300 maximum contributions can be made, period.
Then, we have a Primary Election Day, nationwide, where all States select their candidates. Likewise, voter Registration for Party Identification purposes, is for a 2-year mandatory period. No Party switching to vote in opposing Party Primaries.
This will reduce Elitist Candidates, and force expenditures to be focused on each State's interest on local media.
Your proposal would favor wealthy people i.e. Romney, Trump or Bloomberg would be the strongest candidates.
What you describe is anything BUT simple. Each candidate now has to run the equivalent of a general election campaign AND with the financial restrictions you've created. How are they going to do that? By going out and getting more smaller donations. OK, how are they going to do THAT?
Also, your plan reminds me of the South Park underwear gnomes--"Simply make everyone only give $2300 donations, and have the candidates run in fifty states, and presto, we have a final candidate who's of the people, not the establishment," or whatever.
What are you going to do to the political parties who will give their support to individual candidates (like, uh, Romney, whose support by the establishment, I am guessing, has you thinking about this, at least in part)? With candidates relying on smaller donations, and with no bundling and McCain-Feingold-like restrictions on freedom of people to organize and pool their own money (those evil PACS), all that's happened is that the same monied interests will donate from individuals who make up those interests--which is what they do NOW.
Your solution is no solution at all. It makes the problem worse because you're having these smaller candidates spreading themselves so thin across the country instead of focusing their limited resources on ONE primary at a time, where they can get the most bang for their limited buck.
How does your way make anything better, instead of giving us one candidate who emerges from this fifty-primary day a winner--and that winner will be the one who is best because....?
Welcome to Italy.
So we improve the choice of candidates by FORCING people to stay in a party?
I don't think you've thought this through.