A lot of recent political blather has been centered on the record shattering fund-raising efforts of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the relatively unimpressive financial performance of presumptive Republican front-runner John McCain. This competition for cash casts light on perhaps the most ethically repugnant feature of contemporary American politics: that being, of course, the power of special interests to shape policy through campaign finance and its pernicious partner, lobbying.

A discussion of campaign finance reform must begin with a tremendously misguided Supreme Court ruling. In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court ruled that, essentially, speech is protected under the Constitution, and the use of money is a protected form of speech, which is protected from regulation unless the government can provide a compelling interest to limit it. The decision also ruled that the corruption of public officials is a compelling interest, thus the government could regulate direct ‘donations’ to public officials, but that ‘money spent by an individual independently of a candidate does not carry with it the same danger of corruption, and, therefore, is not subject to limitations.’

Congress subsequently limited direct donations to a candidate’s coffer, but the decision also precipitated the rise of the modern political action committee, more commonly known by the sexy acronym ‘PACs.’

Anyone can form a PAC: you, me, the labor monopolies that fix prices and exacerbate recessions (unions) ‘ just about anyone or thing. They are utterly immune from the law but possess tremendous political muscle because of this convenient loophole. The only requirements are that they present a message and do not directly sponsor a candidate. To demonstrate how effective this requirement is in safeguarding against special interests with deep pockets acting directly for a candidate, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a PAC. They did not technically directly support George W. Bush.

Money is not speech. It can take many forms, and like water, it flows through the darkest crevices and around the biggest mountains to find its way to the political fountain of malfeasance.

Our democracy can be analogized to a publicly traded corporation. Instead of owning shares, we possess citizenship. Unlike shares, however, everyone is awarded but one unit of ownership in this enterprise, each of equal worth; a tribute to the novel ‘all men created equal’ phrase that the country was at least somewhat predicated on comes to mind.

Our system is not perfect; perfection eludes governments and humanity in general. Limiting the ability for PACs to influence politicians and directly aid candidates, closing the numerous loopholes in current law that permit influence peddling and publicly financing campaigns will all violate basic precepts of democracy ‘ but only, however, for a satisfactory reason ‘ to protect the spirit of democracy. The finest concepts produced by humanity are almost always wrought with contradiction; this is what makes us human.

Allowing democracy to be subverted by campaign funds, lobbying and PACs in order to preserve democracy is a pedantic and ultimately disserving legal conclusion. Hopefully, as campaigns raise unprecedented amounts of money in 2007, this will become a centerpiece issue.