Stardate 20020213.1637

(On Screen): I haven't been paying too close of attention to the latest posturing about campaign finance reform, because I'm deeply cynical about the whole proposition. Those who are capable of reforming the system are also those who benefit most from the status quo; why should we believe that they would make any change which would weaken them? (It's about like expecting career politicians to act on term limits.) One reason for the charade is that each party hopes to make changes which disproportionately affect the other, so that the relative balance of power will change. Soft money contributions from the trade unions? Ban 'em! (Say the Republicans, aware of the fact that the majority of that money goes to the Democratic party.) Corporate contributions? Cut them babies back. (Say the Democrats, since the Republican party gets more than half.)

The result will be a snarled mess even if something passes, with a lot of party-line votes on individual provisions, and like as not it will not pass judicial muster (on First Amendment grounds). I've seen this debate happen many times in my life; each time they make a change it affects nothing. A difference that makes no difference is not a difference. For example, there was the $2000 limit on direct contributions to a candidate -- which at the same time left indirect methods of helping the candidate untouched, which simply meant that everyone had to be a bit more crafty in spreading their contributions around; the flow of money remained the same or even increased.

Money talks. It always has, and it always will.