I don't believe that any will until the money is changed. There is zero incentive to change until the representation of actual constituents means more to individual campaigns, and the parties themselves, than they do now.
while admitting that i haven't looked at the issue much, afaik, the evidence that large amounts of money impacts election results is pretty skimpy (not having minimum threshold amounts does, but arguably may be more of a symptom than a cause). if you know of evidence to the contrary, please make me aware of it.
I would have to look it up, but i believe there is a direct correlation btwn money spent and success. That said, social media is no doubt changing that right now. I also don't think we are specifically talking only about elections, but perhaps favor when actually legislating. I mean, there are plenty of examples of outrageous things plugged into bills that seem to fit no other agenda than benefiting one specific entity.
but regardless, without proportional representation, the money you are talking about will impact who wins primaries and which of the major parties wins generals, not the establishment of a multi-party stasis.
The parties are the two entities benefitting from PACs as the system stands. If you severely limit their effect by limiting the money, it would certainly help level the playing field some. Again, there are still other major issue, such as who controls the debate committee/polls/etc, but changing that stuff doesn't matter if you have third party candidates who simply can't raise the PAC contributions like a Dem or Pub.
