One of the problems with term limits is that it transitions the power to the unelected bureaucrats because a significant portion of the Congress is learning their jobs for the first 2 years and they rely on staffers and bureaucrats to guide them on all but their truly hot-button topics. Add to that, the Congressmen know they will only have time and attention to hit a couple major items before they are out and term limits actually end up undermining the intended form of government. The way to really do term limits IAW the Founders' vision is to implement it at the ballot box but that requires knowledgeable voters like we had 200 years ago.

Funding or spending limits was just a way for the Democrats and their media allies to try to solidify their advantage of free publicity and spin. If Joe Schmoe believes in Candidate $hmoo enough to sink a million dollars into him/her then Joe should do it. It doesn't matter if that million dollars is all Joe has or just 1% of his fortune, he's walking the talk. Joe Six Pack surely isn't going to sink that kind of money into any candidate when his math boils down to how many beers he could buy with that donation.

I prefer sunlight laws that require candidates come clean with their funding sources and quid pro quo donations with criminal penalties attached if they don't reveal donations in a timely manner (like Clinton taking foreign money n 1992 and 1996). The criminal penalties could even include remedies like forcing a new election when pertinent facts are delayed in reporting.