Along those lines I have often pondered and argued that if you can not vote for a given candidate you SHOULD NOT be allowed to contribute wealth to their campaign. Certainly, if you want to speak on their behalf that is one thing, spend your own money on that no one can stop you with government sanctioned activity or force. Still, if you don't live in a district or area a representative represents, why the .... should you be allowed to finance their candidates?
Groups and organizations would only be allowed to contribute in direct proportion to the number of members they have in district.
This is, as far as I can see a fairly ideologically neutral policy. Some districts the conservative/GOP candidate would suffer in others the Dem/Left candidate would. In some districts the anti-gun candidate would suffer in some districts they would thrive, it all depends on the nature of the district. Why should we expect Haight-Ashbury to have representatives in government that advocate for wide open carry conceal than we would expect some small town in Idaho to be forced to subsidize The Vagina Monologues?