"The money" is not some monolithic force or some alien god. It resides with actual people and organizations that have their agendas, covering all imaginable spectrum of politics, philosophies, self-interest etc. For every Soros, there's a Koch - and sometimes they fight each other, sometimes they join forces (like Soros and the Kochs on marijuana and immigration), and to some issues both are indifferent.
"Eliminating money from politics" will not solve any problems. It will simply shut up those who could buy the mike time for minority views, while cementing the influence of incumbents and the power derived from controlling the levers of the State itself.
Not even remotely close to being accurate.
Issues where there is a large benefit for a few on one side and a small benefit for all on the other go the direction of the few because they pay for it. There is no money flowing into campaign coffers to simplify the tax code, but there are millions of dollars being spent to keep it complex and make it more complex. There is no competing profit motive to spend on both sides of every issue, and many of the things that hurt us the most are not political issues, just legislation and clauses within legislation, for the benefit of campaign funders.
I describe it as death by a thousand cuts. when GE lobbyists have a little clause put into a bill, it doesn't necessarily hurt the country, but when thousands of interests, not just corporations, but unions, industry groups, foreign corporations, heck foreign governments get their little tiny pieces of legislation, year after year, the whole system becomes corrupted.
Conservatives and libertarian complain that government is too big, but who asks it to be bigger?
Special interests pay about 4 billion per election cycle in campaign contributions, for that, they get far too big of a say in how $4 trillion is spent.
I suggest we taxpayers pay that $4 billion so that people that represent us can actually represent US.
Large interests will still have the power to petition their representatives, and as a consequence of their size, they will be heard, but because there will be no quid-pro-quo, representatives will be able to make decisions based on the best interests of the country, not whaat their funders want.
Regulatory capture is a massive problem in our government, and there is no way to take away that power without taking away the power to influence with cash.
My previous example was the corporate tax code. If what you argue were true, then the millions of smaller corporations that would benefit from a lower rate with less complexity would have the power to influence policy, but that is not what happens, the concentrated influence of very large corporations massively outspend and out-lobby the smaller companies, so we get and continue to have a ridiculously complex corporate tax that allows big companies with lots of lawyers and accountants to game the system and pay little or no taxes, while the smaller companies pay much closer to the marginal rate.
General Electric's corporate tax return was 24,000 pages long, twenty four thousand pages! And they lobby to KEEP IT THAT way and even add more complexity, and they, along with the other very big companies, are very large and very important to our economy, but the smaller companies add up to even more in total, but the minority get's their way because of the disproportionate influence of concentrated wealth in the largest entities.
If you believe in a smaller government that is more accountable, there is no way you could possibly support the status quo of lobby and campaign spending.
If a large interests wants something, they will get an audience, but a representative who is not financially beholden to these interests can make decisions based on the merits.
Same with minority interests.
