Start a PAC with the above name. Say that every election year you will target an equal number of Democrats and Republicans based solely on “The Crazy Factor”. You will accept $$$ from people of either party or no party but they must say what party that they want their $$$ applied against. That could mean fielding “sane” candidates in primaries or backing opposition candidates in the general. If more people say they want their $$$ to go against the Republican (or the Democrat), fine. It does. But you still maintain the “one for one” thing. (As a bonus, name your first contenders for opposition.)
Why wouldn’t I just give my money to sane candidates whose positions I actually support?
Yeah, there’s already a system exactly like you’re proposing - it’s called an election. 
It’s too easy to find “insane” things about any candidate, which will undermine your PAC’s credibility if you happen to be supporting him or her.
And by “find”, I mean “take out of context”.
Hypothetical attack ad: [opens with dark shadows sweeping across a graveyard while Grieg’s In the Hall of the Mountain King plays faintly in the background] Congressman Dan Lewis wants you to believe he’s completely sane, but did you know that he cosponsored a bill banning war widows from tying their pet alligators to fire hydrants on Tuesdays? [sound of cuckoo clock striking three] Is this the sane choice for America?
The bill in question was to ban people (some of whom are war widows, it can be reasonably inferred) hitching their dog’s leashes to fire hydrants at any time (Tuesday included by implication, though not explicitly), but was broadly written to cover any tetherable animal.
You could, of course, do just that but it wouldn’t have any impact on the “big picture” if Crazy person X in another state or district gets reelected. I could even see where the “un-endorsment” of such a pac would become an issue.
How would it be different if I just donated money to the CfSG PAC and directed it to his opponent and he still won?
I don’t want crazy people in government, so I donate money to the opponents of crazy people running for office. Or, I don’t want crazy people in government, so I donate money to a PAC that donates money to the opponents of crazy people running for office.
I suppose it could, if it could develop a reputation of being completely non-partisan but opposed to crazy people in government. And that’s a pretty fine line to draw.
If the PAC establishes a set of principles and says “anyone who doesn’t endorse these principles is crazy”, either the principles are non-controversial, or they are controversial and thus become partisan.
You are sort of trying to make a Political Action Committee non-political.
Regards,
Shodan
This wouldn’t work, because you will never get many Republicans or Democrats to buy into it. With party identity being so strong, you’d never get them to agree that there is an equivalent number of crazies in each party.
Of course this works … it’s called hedging your bet … you donate to both sides in an election and you’re guarantied favorable treatment by whoever wins …
So you’d, what, spend half the PAC’s money on boosting John Kasich and Jeff Flake, and the other half distributed across the Democratic field?
Do we have a working definition of “sane” in the context of political debate?
Whatever Trump isn’t.
Sane government is an oxymoron.