I think this overlooks significant swaths of American history in which candidates were "owned" by wealthy individuals. Yeah, the current system re-arranged the chess pieces, but it prevents (sorta) individuals from having too much monetary influence over candidates. It dilutes any one person's financial impact, in favor of requiring (sorta) a group, an aggregation, which dilutes any one person's influence. (Sorta.)
I'm not defending the current system as 'perfect' - far from it. Its just the best one available.
Really, there can't be a "perfect" system for this kind of thing.
I believe it unconstitutional to restrict speech in the form of monetary contributions to candidates. It is not unconstitutional to require 24 hour updates of donors and their, 50% penalty for failure to report in the 24 hour time frame. The people can decide who to vote for based on their financing supporters. Right now Koch and Soros hide behind noble sounding organizational names. It would be right out there for all to see.