1. Elimination of the Corporate State

The second point in the list, overturning the "Citizens United" decision, is one factor of this topic, but we'll deal with it in its own post. For now, let's ignore that part, and focus on lobbyists and campaign finance.

From http://www.the99declaration.org/eliminate_corporate_state

"The merger of the American political system of republican democracy with the economic system of capitalism has resulted in the establishment of a corporate government of, by and for the benefit of domestic and multinational corporations. Therefore, the 99% of the American People demand an immediate ban on all direct and indirect private contributions of anything of value, to all politicians serving in or running for federal office in the United States.

This ban shall extend to all individuals, corporations, “political action committees,” “super political action committees,” lobbyists, unions and all other sources of private money or things of value, including but not limited to, direct or indirect gifts and/or promises of employment. Private funding of political campaigns by concentrated sources of wealth such as corporations have completely corrupted our political system. Therefore, all private funding of political campaigns shall be replaced by the fair, equal and TOTAL public financing of all federal political campaigns."

The first thing that I have to do here is address this snippet: "...the 99% of the American People demand..." I know that this is called The 99% Declaration, and that the Occupy Movement seeks to represent the 99% of Americans making less than $380,000 a year (or worth less than $8.4 million, depending on whether you're talking about the top 1% earners or the wealthiest 1%, which are different, albeit overlapping, groups).
The problem with this particular line is that it implies total consensus. It says that everyone who isn't in the top group agrees with this message. That is not -- and will never be -- the case. The best that we can do is reflect the opinion of the majority of the people in the 99%, and hope that we can make things better for the vast majority. Anything other than that is disingenuous.

That out of the way, let's look at the topic itself. The first thing that is addressed is lobbying. It says that no one who holds office or is seeking office in the federal government may accept anything of value from anyone, at any time. The obvious problem here is that they need to fund their (re)election campaigns. This is addressed next, by saying that all campaigns will be publicly funded only. It's implied that a candidate may not spend any money except that which is provided for him by public financing.

I would agree with the section on lobbying. There is no legitimate reason, as far as I can see, that a person would have to give anything to a politician in order for their voice to be heard. Even if someone wants to meet a politician for a working lunch, there is no reason that the office-holder can't pay for their own meal. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't meet for lunch. Perhaps someone can point out to me a legitimate reason that a politician would receive anything from a constituent (other than campaign contributions).

When it comes to campaign finance, we start to get into a weird gray area. Ideally, it should take absolutely no money to run a campaign. That would be the ultimate freedom of political speech. The problem is that everything in our society has value, including time. The amount of time that someone volunteers to your campaign can be considered a monetary contribution. If they spend that time producing a product (bumper stickers, websites, television commercials, YouTube videos, top hats with your face plastered on), that could be considered a monetary contribution.
Because everything has value, we can't have a completely free election. No candidate can run a campaign without supporters, and he is ultimately indebted to those supporters. So, if we look at 100% publicly financed campaigns, we have to either pay everyone who works on a campaign, or we need to ignore donated time and goods as contributions.
If we pay everyone involved in a campaign, we either end up with really small campaign teams, or we have a lot of taxpayer money being spent on unsuccessful campaigns. If we ignore donations of time and goods, we could still end up with candidates being indebted to corporations (think Rupert Murdoch donating a hundred hours of airtime to a candidate).
Currently, public funding is only available to Presidential candidates. They may be eligible for contribution matching during the primaries, and a $20 million grant for the general election. If we extend this to all federal offices, how much are we willing to carve out of the budget?
Personally, I think that campaign finance does need an overhaul. I'm not sure that public funding is the answer, but I think that it could be part of the answer. Let's throw out an idea to be beaten and forged into something workable.

Let's say that we outlaw all monetary contributions to federal campaigns. We provide some amount of public financing, and prohibit the use of a candidate's own money after a certain point (current rules allow $50,000 out-of-pocket when accepting public funding. This may or may not be fair). We allow donations of time and goods, but prohibit television advertisements (or require equal time given to all candidates' advertisements). If a news show reports on a candidate, that's fine; if they interview a candidate, they must give equal time to all candidates for that office. We create a public venue online for all candidates to use. This could include public forums, video streams, press releases, or anything else that you can imagine. This tool allows a candidate to get their message out to the vast majority of people, at little-to-no cost. Obviously, there are still production costs for videos, images, and the like, but it would be a step toward leveling the playing field for all candidates.

And that's really the goal.