> The obvious problem is that once you let money into the process (when was the last time someone was elected to congres without spending money on a campaign? And why is that?) and the president (current, former, next) has any control at all over the flow of that money, then the branches are no longer "separate".

I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense.

If money had such a large influences then why did a Presidential candidate who spent about half the other candidate win?

And then you claim the President will control the money, but the President doesn't control campaign funds. They don't even control government spending, Congress does.

> You have a risk of ending up with one or more people in congress who owns favors to the other branch of government. Or who are afraid of having a harder time defending their seat if they criticize the wrong person. And that people shrug this off as "well, that's how politics works" is really dangerous.

Ok, this makes more sense.

But the issue you raise isn't unique to the US system. It's not even unique to politics. Any human interaction can result in people "owning favors".

If you criticism is just human behavior, then I agree. But not much you can do to solve that.