More government vs. campaign finance reform

Yesterday, I posted about campaign finance reform. My conclusion: if you’re really serious about getting the money out of politics, then you’ve got to reduce the power of government. Less government power equals less incentive for anyone to spend millions of dollars trying to influence the government.

Jack Lohman, Wisconsin’s disciple of campaign finance reform, commented on the post:

Lance, just exactly what is it about money do you not understand? Taxpayers want smaller government and the special interests that give campaign cash want just the opposite. Who do you think is going to win that argument?

This is Jack’s answer to just about any political issue: sure, you want to change things, but you can’t because the special interests don’t want it changed. Their money is too powerful.

I wonder if he even realizes how circular his logic is? If special interest money is so powerful, then “special interests” will also oppose campaign finance reform. Because campaign finance reform will curtail their power.

Jack goes on:

Get the money out of the political system and you’ll get your smaller government, because the politicians will be working for us instead of them.

Ah, so we should reform campaign finance. Fully tax-funded campaigns, no private contributions!

But:

Your fantasy that politicians will somehow reduce government and shut off their revenue source is not very realistic. It isn’t going to happen.

So: we can’t reform spending, or taxes, or government, because special interests spending is so powerful. The politicians will never do it.

So: we have to “get the money out of the political system,” in order to get power away from special interests, and back with the people.

But: it’s a fantasy to think that “politicians will somehow reduce government and shut off their revenue source.”

Following Jack’s logic to its obvious conclusion: there’s nothing we can do.

So how come Jack hasn’t just retired to the golf course yet?