How much free speech would you be willing to sacrifice for less corruption in office?

There seems to be a consensus among both sides that more money in politics leads to more corruption and less representation. However atm money is speech, so limiting how much money you can spend is limiting your speech. Then we have campaigning, which can cost millions to succeed at being elected. Political ads arent cheap, so whoever can afford to promote themselves and demonize their opponents most stands the best chance at winning.

If this system were to change it would require limiting candidates and associated organizations, perhaps even journalist's freedom of speech.

If candidates weren't allowed to campaign in the traditional sense and PACs couldn't campaign for them and news outlets weren't allowed to promote them. If candidates were only allowed a website, maybe a social media profile, and multi candidate functions, like debates, as well as a 1 to 2 minute introduction video played at the polls before you voted, would that be too far in the interest of getting money and corruption out of politics?

No more rallies, no more attack ads, basically no more propaganda, no more donations needed, meaning the parties would be far less necessary and influential. Joe the farmer and Richie Rich would for the most part be on even footing, and our already elected officials wouldn't have to take months off the job to campaign to keep their job.