Hypothetically, to change the nation's campaign system or its underlying motives without first being more cognizant of the most effective means by which to implement reform and the probable consequences of that reform would be unwise. Being able to collectively verify and corroborate certain aspects of campaign finance reform would be necessary as omitting important details such as the relevance to a massive amount of people's lives and their perception of the Government and its President would be unideal.
If the case were such that 'the best interest' of the people were to be considered, the first step in changing the nation's campaign system might be to define what 'best interest' actually is; and what of the multiple 'best interests' that would likely emerge? Thus, answering this question is answering a loaded question that also ask what do you think America's best interest actually is? The answer to that question alone could, and has filled volumes of books, and has been contemplated since the inception of our nation.
Assuming knowledge is a pre-condition, which might be a leap of faith for the world of politics, the next best thing to do might be to take a look at the nation's campaign finance system, understand it, analyze it and then arrive at alternatives. The act of, and end result of 'knowing' the campaign finance can be as simple or as complicated as one makes it. If one's goal is to obfuscate with complication and bureaucracy, then naturally it should be made difficult to understand.
Politicians who can make the most of limited campaign finances and win are more likely the ones who can really manage money well. Since money is a big part of what currently makes the human economy function, competition among politicians that worry about how much money they have to market themselves shifts agendas and possibly short changes the American people even under a guise of 'the best interest'. Thus, limiting campaign finances might be a good idea in that case.
The details and process of the campaign finance system is elaborate, dynamic, diverse and sometimes logically incongruent. Institutes, organizations, academics and many others weigh in on the campaign finance process regularly. If equal competition among politicians is within the best interest of the American people, then a range of limitations on access to campaign financing may be a good idea. A campaign finance pool from which all candidates equally draw creates equal competition. However, an exact equality of financed campaigns can also reduce the importance of individual merit, and the value of money within the country. A campaign that is not influenced by financial contributions may not be as likely to be concerned with profiteering which can translate into a power loss. National power loss may not be in the 'best interest' of the American people despite a competing interest for less political distortion in campaign finance.
To enhance the existing campaign finance reform involves identifying the problems of the existing system and deciding what criteria by which to measure solutions against. Political and administrative criteria are often determined by groups of leaders and individual politicians, and often merely discussed and informed by the American people and its informed representatives. Thus, the interests set forth in the criteria by which campaign finance reform is considered may stem form a spiraling political power funnel that begins at the top with 'special' interests and not at the bottom with the American people.
Criteria for finance reform would need to be determined effectively rather than defectively to be functional. Functionality is generally considered desirable and thus relevant to campaign financing. A direct relationship that exists between the financing of political campaigners and their ability to enact the best interest of the American people can be instituted any way 'America' wants it. Again, there is the issue of definition, what exactly is 'America', and how much of it includes the needs of the less politically valuable.
If Presidential candidates and the true interest of the American people is more concerned about raising cash and fundraising and less focused on solving problems and managing resources, then there's no point attempting to reform campaign finance. However, if we want our leaders to market themselves without special interests looking over their shoulders, and whispering instructions into our leaders ears, then campaign finance reform might be worthwhile. How that takes place is no off the cuff decision unless over 300 million people don't need to be heard.