What you're talking about is restricting free speech and access to the ballots.What restrictions on expenditures? This is about restricting, actually eliminating, private contributions.
If you think that the ruling class (D)&(R) political duopoly is going to make it easier for other political parties to compete for what they see as rightfully theirs, you are incomprehensibly naïve.
With the ruling class making the decisions on who is and isn't "suitable" to be a candidate.How is it restricting free speech? The candidates would be able to do and say what they liked with the money with regard to the campaign.
Who makes that determination?...The ruling class...DUH!If the law was in effect whoever got a pre-determined % of the vote in sub-primaries would get money to move forward. How are the parties supposed to be able to effect that?
My arguments are that monopoly is the worst way to do anything and that you have no evidence to suggest that one in this instance would do what you claim it would....In fact, all evidence suggests that it would make matters even worse.It seems your only argument is that it couldn't possibly happen. It doesn't seem like you have any evidence that it would be a bad idea.