First and foremost, I must tell you I'm an avid supporter of term limits. They will not correct the evils in our political system but they'll make our situation better than it is. The problem with term limits (without additional changes) is that they still allow parties to retain control of candidate selection and campaigning.
It is the parties that are the cesspool of corruption. It is the parties that build the "money wall" you speak of. It is the parties that solicit the funds and make the deals that keep partisans in power.
While it would be healthy to rid ourselves of the trash that fills our legislatures and executive offices, we would be naive to imagine their replacements will be much better. There is no shortage of unprincipled individuals, clamoring to replace any official who is unseated. When one goes down, replacements who are as bad or worse will pop up quicker than you can blink.
The seeming conundrum is that, while parties are the problem, partisanship is natural. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy. Because of this, some people conclude that parties are inevitable.
Perhaps, but it does not follow that we must let the parties control our government.
If we are to curb the excesses of political parties, we must select our government officials by sidestepping partisanship and focusing on the character of the candidates. The first step in that direction is to "know your enemy". Would you look at #msg-17009919 and critique it. Are any of the assertions incorrect? Can we come up with a more accurate or more complete analysis of the problems that confront us?
I will appreciate any objective material you can add.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
