I've been thinking, and thinking, and thinking, until smoke is coming out of my ears, and I can't for the life of me come up with any thought process that will persuade me that having had "campaign finance reform" in place would have prevented anything that happened in the Enron scandal.

Yet there seems to be a growing consensus in the punditocracy that the Enron debacle is going to result somehow in the passage of campaign finance legislation a la McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan.

Can someone, anyone, explain this to me?

I can't think of any reason for it period, but I guess that makes me odd man out. I am trying to keep a tally of all the things the NY Times and the WaPo claim would be solved by Campaign Finance Reform.

The single most effective way to reform the campaign finance system is to reform and then freeze in place the tax system. Most of these coroprations are just trying to buy favorable tax treatment so why not get rid of corporate taxes and go to a flat tax for individuals, with no deductions.

That's easy. Campaign Finance Reform must pass because the political class is tired of all those people trying to affect the political process. Of course it would be indecorous to say so, thus we have to come up with any excuse that even sounds plausiable.

So, had Bush tried to save Enron, that would be proof that CFR was necessary because Enron would have been seen as having bought and paid for that service. However, since Bush did not save Enron, the proponents of CFR have come up with a new one. Bush should have saved Enron but did not because he was afraid of the appearence of corruption. If Enron had not "bought access", then Bush would have felt free to help Enron "based on the merits."

Dick Gephardt, who thinks he wants to be President, actually said that.

Okay, my best guess on this is:

If there'd been CFR, then money would no longer be an issue at all in elections. If corporations, frex, were only allowed to contribute $1000 to a candidate, and if (and I'm not sure CFR legislation ACTUALLY addresses this) there were no soft money, then the people would be able to make their voices heard w/o it being drowned out by corporate donations. Government would then be back in the hands of the people, where it belongs.

Oh, and unions and interest groups would still, of course, be able to mobilize their memberships to donate money, but they are groups OF THE PEOPLE, and somehow that makes it okay. The Teamsters? They're a union, and they speak for the working folks, unlike, say, a Procter&Gamble, which only employs a few tens of thousands.

Just a thought.