Should there be term or donation limits on the Legislature?

I don't follow politics extremely closely, but one thing that bothers me as an American citizen is that our legislative branch is completely partisan. It has become an entity that can only be joined by the most hardcore, no-compromise candidates that will not work with the other side under any circumstances. Our left wing isn't nearly as radical as the left wings in much of the rest of the world, but the attitude that "my side is right, your side is wrong" seems to pervade every discussion. Any "bipartisan" bill that gets passed often seems to happen only because there will be a complete breakdown if there isn't -- and even then, it is no sure thing.

And look, I could be totally wrong about all of this. I'm coming at this from an outsider's perspective. I'm seeing lifetime politicians get into office and stay there until they or their party choose a successor. This happens, in my limited view, because there are no term limits on a congressperson or senator, and the donation limits are broken.

Let's tackle the donation limits first. I'm not totally sure about this and don't know how to start looking, but I believe that the current rules are that there are limits to how much a person or entity can donate to a campaign. The problem is with other people getting donations and running ads on the behalf of the candidate. While these campaigners ultimately cannot be stopped (nor do I necessarily think that they should be), I think stricter rules regulating what they can do is called for. If they want to pay people to write political think pieces that ultimately support one candidate or attack another, that's fine. But straight up advertising bothers me, because the majority of the political ads I see are not paid for by the campaigns themselves but by these PACs. (Furthermore, I think super PACs should be eliminated completely, as what I'm referring to seems to be legal only for them?)

And so, whoever has the most money -- especially in the primaries, in which the party's favorite will get the vast majority of any funding if there is a seat being vacated -- wins the election, as everyone else is silenced by virtue of being unable to make as much noise, regardless of what they have to say.

And then, once someone has a seat, it is near impossible for them to ever be beaten. As someone of the same party, you may as well never run against an incumbent candidate, because they'll have the money on their side. And since the party likely supported them in the first place, they will be spouting the party line views. Until they leave their seat, at which point the process starts all over again, based on the money.

So why not have true donation limits? A candidate can raise no more than X amount of $, thus making sure that everyone has equal say. Sure, there are always people that use other means to campaign (you can say that Trump was backed by Russia's hacking all you want, but you can't deny that it was damn effective), but I'd rather cross that bridge after the real problems have been fixed.

And after the donation limits, why not term limits? Why not two terms, like a president? Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch have been in the senate for over four decades.

*Shrug* Anyway, if any of you have anything to say to this, feel free to attack my misunderstandings. I'm truly out on a limb here, outside of my comfort zone. I know nothing about how politics truly works. But seeing the clowns we've had conducting the Kavanaugh hearing (on both sides of the damn aisle), I wanted to vent my thoughts and ask what people's solutions would be. All of this is pointless anyway, as nobody currently in the Legislature would ever willingly give up their jobs to these limits.