Final answer:
Support for campaign finance legislation to limit bundling centers on reducing the excessive influence of wealthy individuals and corporations on politicians and preventing an unfair advantage for interest groups in politics.
Step-by-step explanation:
One reason someone might support campaign finance legislation that attempts to limit bundling is that bundling allows wealthy individuals and corporations to have too much influence over elected officials. Bundling involves collecting large sums of money from various donors and then presenting it to a campaign as a single larger contribution, often coordinated by a bundler who has influence with the campaign. This can create an unfair advantage for certain interest groups in politics, as they are able to elevate their own interests above those of the average voter through larger financial contributions.
Historically, laws such as the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act have sought to regulate and limit political campaign contributions to prevent the undue influence of wealth on political outcomes. However, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission significantly changed the landscape by enabling corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political activities, consequently making it more difficult to enforce limitations on bundling and other fundraising tactics. This has raised concerns about potential corruption and the enhancement of oligarchic power in US politics, where a few powerful entities could sway elections and policy decisions.