The problem with #1 is that it conflicts with free speech, and particularly the kind of speech most in need of protection: political speech. Who gets to determine who is and is not a "candidate" and therefore has access to the place from which they will state their platform?
I don't like the massive influence of money on politics any more than you do, but I don't think curtailing political speech will solve the problem.
As an aside, the way I think the influence of money on politics could be curtailed is by way more speech, drowning them out. Use every free (as in beer) platform available, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc etc etc to blast a message contrary to the two-party system and you might have a chance.