Campaign finance reform is political suicide for any politician because the corporate interest controlling both parties by paying for the campaigns like the system exactly as it is currently designed-- a false choice between two essentially identical options, both under near complete corporate ownership. And the SC has recently ruled so egregiously against campaign finance controls/limits as to make government essentially a outsourced department of major corporate interests.
Corporate industrial interests offer you two parties, and keep the finance rules such than no candidate can possibly run outside of this bifurcated choice. Then they offer you two candidates of 90% identical thought when it comes to the issues that matter to big business (and some loudly contested differences on social issues that they couldn't care less about). America then selects between the two, thinking they have made a real choice rather than simply adopted option 1 or 1a from the corporate menu. The amount of variation is thus reduced, accounted for and controlled, and the system continues.
True campaign finance reform such as RJ suggests opens the door to the most truly horrifying possibility in the eyes of the current controlling corporate industrial structure- the rise of a third party not of their funding (and thus control). Candidates running free of the dominating influence of corporate cash, and thus not beholden to corporate interests, would be free to make rational assessments of issues relating to business, government, tax, the environment, regulation, etc.
This cannot be allowed. Thus you get things like the Roberts court's UC decision, which pushes the scale completely the other way, all but removing the importance of the citizenry in comparison to corporate sponsorship for any given election.
