DA> In addition, Congress has further limited competition with campaign 
 DA> "reform" laws that make it virtually impossible for a challenger, who 
 DA> has no connections to the Capitol Hill network, to 
 DA> raise enough money to 
 DA> go after an incumbent.
 
 DA> In the old days, you could go to a couple of sympathetic fat cats and 
 DA> get $100,000 for seed money. With the maximum individual contribution 
 DA> set at $1,000, that can't happen. Now, what you do is contact a 
 DA> professional lobbiest who throws a Capitol Hill reception at $1,000 a 
 DA> head and calls all his clients and associates. You still get your 
 DA> $100,000, but now you owe the lobbiest big time. 
 DA> Obviously, anyone who 
 DA> threatens to upset the status quo isn't going to 
 DA> get this kind of help 
 DA> so something approaching 90% of this money is raised for incumbents.
 DA> Just remember when a Congressman starts talking 
 DA> about campaign finance 
 DA> reform, it's not very likely that he's going to support a bill that 
 DA> jeapordizes his re-election.
 
I was beginning to think that I was the only one who saw this. I have had 
very little luck in pointing this out to people who are ranting for "more 
campaign reform."
 
It should be called "campaign deform" since it mainly serves to lock out 
alternatives. Unless you're a gadzillionaire like Perot or are backed by an 
established party you are functionally locked out. 
 
The next step will be to forbid individuals the right to finance their own 
runs. Then they'll tighten the rules on what constitutes a legitimate 
political party, further narrowing the competition from "special interests."
 
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------