Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly, when Congress moves to increase the salary of Congress, the bill tends to pass with flying colors. ;)
Therefore, your best bet is to get regulations against Google by electing people paid by someone else, then later get regulations against that someone else by electing people paid by someone entirely different. It's a juggling act of corruption!
> Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea.
While the electorate is bickering over distractions like this cycle you are correct. However, limiting special interest influence strikes me as a non-partisan issue, so if the citizens spoke up I think they'd have sufficient influence.. But, then maybe I'm being an idealist. Regardless, your short term solution works.
The problem is, it's a non-partisan issue in that almost all our representatives, regardless of political party, are totally comfortable with it. ;) And the reason we're uncomfortable with special interest influence is... that it absolutely freaking works. The power money has on election results is so strong, that almost anyone who isn't accepting it probably isn't getting elected. So the likelihood of gaining a majority of Congresspeople who would move against it is pretty much impossible.
Therefore, your best bet is to get regulations against Google by electing people paid by someone else, then later get regulations against that someone else by electing people paid by someone entirely different. It's a juggling act of corruption!