No. My preference would be to totally take the $$ out of politics altogether. That said, I think it's intellectually dishonest to complain about the effect of union spending. It is a FRACTION of what big business/billionaires spend, but conservatives are okay with that,though. I question the objectivity of someone that singles out union spending when it's not nearly as much as their opponents. Yes, unions buy influence, and yes, a Clinton is there to accept the $. Why bring that up, but not Sheldon Addelson or the tobacco industry's donations?
Please explain to me how unions spending millions of dollars extorted from the workers they enslave on behalf of the union bosses keeping themselves wealthy compares to a billionaire spending his own money. I have a feeling I will be highly entertained.