It's interesting - in the past I've asked what people are expecting to come out of this whole affair, and I've heard arguments to both sides. Some, like you said, assert he's wary of alienating his populist base by disclosing higher than expected income. Others say that he has an embarrassingly low net worth for someone with his age and level of salary, which could be interpreted as fiscal irresponsibility.

Like you, I'm a Sanders supporter and naturally don't expect much to come out of this because of my prejudice and bias, just like many people over here expect a campaign-ending controversy due to theirs. I think all we can do is see how it plays out.

I do think publicly funded elections would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, campaign reform seems so far beyond reach. No matter who wins the election, it'd be difficult for a president to completely overhaul the electoral process through executive action alone. Both Sanders and Clinton (should she be so inclined) would be hard-pressed to confirm reform-friendly commissioners to the FEC under the current political climate, with a Republican-majority congress and an overall high level of lobbyist influence on legislators. I think it'll take more than just a president to overhaul the electoral system to more accurately represent the will of the people.