Thus, if we all raise $100 we will all end up with $100 to spend.

But if you raise $250, I raise $99 and they raise $1,
Then $100 or yours gets distributed $99 to me and $1 to them.
$39 of mine goes to you and $0.16 to them.
And $0.29 of theirs goes to you and $0.11 to me.

In total, you end up with around $190, I end up with around $158 and they end up with around $1.76.

Was raising two and a half times the money that I did worth having only a 20% money advantage over me while giving me 60% more money to throw around then I raised myself? (Proportionally they grow the most, 76%. But this only gives them a total of $1.76.)

Under these circumstances, to what extent will each of us find the fund raising effort worthwhile?

Without requiring any gov funds, I believe that implementing this proposal will quickly bring the process down to reasonable levels, since it encourages candidates not to put in the effort to out-raise their opponents while still giving them the incentive to raise the very minimum they need to run a reasonable campaign. In a variation of the proposal, perhaps that minimum could even be supplied by the government so the candidates will be beholden to no big donors while still having the freedom but not the incentive to raise much more.