You're a lawyer, and the restrictions on speech you propose will certainly lots of opportunity for lawyers to exercise power and get additional work. You personally are almost certainly part of the 1%, and if you insinuate that businessmen try to influence politics for their monetary gain, why shouldn't we assume the same about you? Furthermore, while you propose restrictions on the political speech of other people, you don't seem to be proposing restrictions on the political speech of newspaper corporations, universities, or their employees.
To the degree that your proposals are specific at all, it looks to me that they amount to a self-serving attempt at further concentrating political power and the ability to engage in political speech in the hands of political incumbents, lawyers, the media, and universities. And in the many areas your proposal is vague, I don't see why I should assume that you are not simply pursuing your self-interest with your political activities, which, being a member of an intellectual elite and "the 1%", almost certainly don't coincide with the interests of average Americans. So, why should we trust you?