Nothing as long as you don't mind one person buying an election
Huh? I was fairly certain that bribing people to vote has always been illegal, always will be, and is not even up to debate.
Now, returning to the actual debate we're having, what's wrong with unlimited contributions to and unlimited expenditures by political organizations? Do you have something against informing the voting public regarding the issues and the candidates?
I'm not aware that any definition of democracy includes anything about financing campaigns
Can you have true democracy without freedom of speech?
the whole public financing system set up after Watergate required basically that each side similar amounts of money (in effect -because they set a limit on matched funds and limits on personal funds that could be used in a campaign) and set a cap on the total amount of money that could be spent in the general election
First of all, that stat is bullshit. Basically any 501(c) organization always has been able to engage in political advocacy without dealing with the FEC as long as that advocacy is not tied directly to a candidate.
Secondly, who determines who is on what side? What about a libertarian or conservative organization which practices confrontational politics against Republican politicians (e.g. Americans for Tax Reform with their Taxpayer Protection Pledge)?
And again, why is this even remotely desirable?
From 1976 through 2004, every major party presidential nominee relied exclusively on public money for the financing of the general election campaign
That's incredibly stupid. Why should my taxes pay for someone who I completely disagree with to run for political office?