Seperation of Merch and State?
Clearly, it takes money to run an election campaign. There's increased scrutiny over the sources of funds, some of which are more innocent than others, but a general rule is that you receive money from folks that anticipate that your election would advance their own interests/ideals. That's fine, but then it puts pressure on candidates to give their sponsors their money's worth, potentially limiting or tempering the policies that they make, or causing them to side-step issues entirely. And nobody's immune to it; I see candidates from both parties, even the most passionately radical ones, even those maintaining a policy of straight-talking, who skirt around issues that might put them at odds with their sponsors. Well, clearly, skirting around issues is practically necessary for appealing to broader demographics; I don't think there's a solution to that one in a two-party system. But when the dance is noticeably for the interest of appealing to those financing your campaign, it seems more problematic to me.
Here's what I'd like to see: sponsorship of candidates that does not seek political repayment. What else can candidates offer in return for the sponsorship then? Product endorsement. I would be much much much happier with a system in which candidates spoke their mind about pharmaceuticals/health insurance/oil policy/climate change, and then fed me some line about the great taste of Pepsi. It would help me separate the parts of the platform based on personal ideals and convictions verses the parts geared toward fundraising. Granted, this won't stop the degree to which platforms are watered down to attract the widest set of voters, but I think it would be a way to trim off one of the layers of influence.
The biggest problem I could foresee is that any company that is large enough to sponsor a candidate qualifies as a special interest of their own. However, provided it was made clear that there was no obligation after election day (for instance, advancement of legislation that could benefit the company), it would still be possible for a company to profit from the campaign. Even if the situation came up where the company is putting into office a person who eventually acts against the company's interest, that means your candidate won, and you probably sold a shitload of Pepsi.
Of course, candidates would have to be careful to choose products that don't alienate voters (like coke drinkers), but I think there are products out there that fit the bill, that are pretty politically neutral. Old Spice? Charmin? Viagra?
It could however lead to off-topic debates:
"Now, I respect my opponent’s opinions, I think that he's a smart man. But the fact remains that there is a way for the American people to cut calories WITHOUT sacrificing great taste!"