Let's take a look at Democrat vs Republican fund raising:

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/

The fact that PAC money is needed to win elections doesn't mean that everyone supports PAC money. There are multiple PACs whose stated goals are to abolish PACs.

Look at the votes. Republicans vote to defend money in politics, Democrats vote to abolish it. The pattern has been very consistent for over a decade.

Meanwhile, Republicans typically prefer term limits instead, and are typically opposed by Democrats. [1] [2]

TBH it amazes me that Congress has as much power as they do over campaign finance. Ads, etc. are form of political speech. And restricting political speech is nigh unto violating the 1st Amendment.

[1] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/national-...

[2] https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208395-senate-...

Well term limits are a genuinely bad idea. They make sense for the President, because the Presidency is a uniquely powerful office, and a perpetual president is a real threat to democracy.

A perpetual representative, who wields 1/535th of America's executive power is not going to cause much harm, certainly not enough to justify overriding the will of the people who would keep them in office if they could.

Consider also, term limits would speed up the revolving door between lobbyists and congress, by forcing people out before they're ready to leave, and replacing them with legislators who are less experienced and easier to manipulate.

When some people in Congress have been there for over 40 years, term limits certainly do sound reasonable.

> easier to manipulate

If they weren't always re-campaigning, they might be less easy to manipulate.

If they weren't always re-campaigning, they would not be accountable to the people for their actions, and during their statutory final term they would be actively seeking an employment guarantee from somebody once they're out, and that employer will have leverage over them during that two year term.

  it was one of Hillary Clinton's chief campaign promises

And one impossible for any President to fulfill, so it was inherently dishonest. The President has no authority in amending the Constitution and does not even participate in the process.