Finding a New Big Man vs. Presidential Elections

Although elections around the world are increasingly a testament to who can raise the most money, the point is most clearly visible in America (although Harper has ended all public funding in Canada which seems to be one giant step in the same direction) where the supreme court has upheld the rights of corporations (which are people) to spend as much money (which is speech) as they so desire. When this is coupled with the fact that "Super PACs" can do all of this fundraising and advertising without even disclosing their donor list there is a situation where it is very clear that money buys elections.
Since elected officials owe their jobs to this system and are clearly skilled in the raising of funds, they have no incentive to bring about change. The supreme court doesn't seem to have any desire to change the system. The population as a whole seems quite apathetic to the issue. With all of this it is easy to believe that the system will continue for at least the foreseeable future.
My suggestion is to take a look at the nature of the "Big Man" from hunter gather societies for a new answer. I remember watching a movie called "Ongka's Big Moka" in a first year anthropology class that details how a tribe uses potlaching (gift-based economy) to decide who will be the next "Big Man" or the de facto leader of all the connected tribes. You can see part 1/7 below and click through on Youtube for the rest of the movie.



My suggestion is that American politics work in the same way. Start the four year election cycle with multiple candidates around America trying to use as much as their personal wealth as possible to secure donations from other people. As stronger candidates emerge others will undoubtedly capitulate and push all of their funds toward those stronger candidates in hopes of garnering some favour under the new regime. As divergent candidates arise people will undoubtedly donate what they can afford or as much as they are willing to, to whichever candidate they agree with the most. Admittedly there would still be a need for advertising as candidates grow strong enough to bring their campaigns to the national level but they would need to maintain a large surplus of wealth for their ultimate gift. Finally when one candidate manages to outshine all the rest, he or she would then take all of the funds they have remaining and disperse it evenly to the populous as a whole. At least then a large portion of the money raised would go to people who need it instead of large advertising and media firms. I don't know exactly how much the average person would receive but probably enough for a decent lunch for everyone in America. Not too shabby. The State of the Union address would get a lot more viewers if the President had to buy everyone a sandwich to eat during the speech.