Third step, banning advertisement for bills except for public notices.
It's how they do it in many (if not most) countries. You still have political discourse but you can't spend to get it. It works quite well.
This is a self-contradictory statement. Maintaining efficient political discourse costs money. Writing costs money, printing costs money, meeting with people costs money, making films and posters and t-shirts and bumper stickers costs money. Doing practically everything except most basic meaning of "speech" - i.e. making sounds with your throat - costs money. Unless you ban all this and allow only political discussion conducted in one's own kitchen (without even serving tea - that costs money too) - the money has to come from somewhere. If you ban open collection, it would just move underground. With all the consequences of politicians depending on the underground and the underground types to get elected.
>>> It works quite well.
I notice you didn't name even one country where it works quite well. I know about political systems in a number of democratic countries, in all of them getting elected costs money, and this money has to come from somewhere. Where and how exactly it works without money?
Actually, you can't be unfamiliar with Brendan Eich story if you read HN. He was ousted as Mozilla CEO because he contributed money to support Prop 8 campaign in California. Check out what Prop 8 is, check out what California props are in general, then check out how much money is spent on them. It's exactly the opposite of "money in politics dies". Spending would explode, as instead of one decision (elect X vs Y to the Senate) you need to influence 100s of decisions (for each publicly voted proposal) and political campaigns can influence minds. Which means people interested in the outcome will pay for these campaigns. Unless, of course, you propose to ban political speech altogether except by specially designated government officials.