The implicit assumption is that you shouldn't have the legislator's ear because you have a fat check in hand. Chance are that the check will win over a petition.
If we are to have freedom of speech, then Beck should be able to have his show. That's the easy part.
Beck converts money into public opinion. Arguably, SuperPACs do the same. Hence the Citizens United decision. In practice, SuperPAC donors just tell the legislator why the check was written, or in which case it will be. Nothing wrong with the premise (free speech), plenty wrong with the outcome (money = voice, or rather money = ear?)
Now that I ran this circle, I can see how publicly financed campaigns might be the only answer. Thank you for asking a difficult question to answer. I'll definitely think about this more.
In practice, SuperPAC donors just tell the legislator why the check was written, or in which case it will be.
If it were not a check, but merely using influence, would things be better? I.e., if Krugman were to offer to endorse Romney only on the condition that Romney expands Obama/Romneycare, would that be acceptable?
Or how about if some rich person stated he would buy a newspaper and use the newspaper to push Romney?
If so, do you favor removing Paul Krugman or Glenn Beck's bully pulpit? If not, why not?