"Term limits" and "campaign finance reform" are treatments for symptoms that ignore the real disease: expansive government power. Unfortunately, too many people never diagnose the real disease or consider the cure too painful, so they opt instead to focus on the symptoms.

Outrage about shady campaign fund-raising has renewed interest in an old waste-of-time treatment. Unfortunately, the campaign finance reform movement is on the wrong horse crossing the wrong river heading into dangerous territory----limiting free speech and protecting incumbents.

The last time Congress rode into campaign finance reform territory, it made things worse while appearing to "do something." Far too much "reform" legislation seems designed to placate the people without changing the status quo.

The central issue at hand is a fundamental human precept: power corrupts. To paraphrase the old adage, the more power involved, the more absolute the corruption. The Constitution’s framers were keenly aware of this tendency and designed a government blueprint to limit the powers accumulated by any person, group or branch of government. Unfortunately, we’ve allowed our federal government to stray far beyond the boundaries established in the Constitution. Consequently, the power amassed by our "leaders" threatens to escape our control like a runaway horse holding the reins in its own teeth.

The root source of our government’s power is, of course, our money. It’s money we earn and willingly---though admittedly under threat of force---hand over to the government.

The primary reason so many interests want to influence government officials is that they want to influence how that money is spent. Part of that money is expended to regulate things. So, it follows that the secondary reason to influence government is to influence government regulation that can adversely or favorably effect a particular constituency.

The real solution, then, is to limit the scope of government spending and regulation. If government confiscated less money, spent less money and regulated less, there would be far less need to buy influence and consequently, there would be less campaign "contributions" and less need to reform campaign fund-raising. Limiting government’s scope is the only way to enact effective campaign finance reform. Additionally, limiting government’s scope would reduce the appeal of a career in Congress by limiting the power that attracts lifetime "addicts."

The framers gave us a blueprint and left us holding the reins of power. To extend this metaphor, the horse is now galloping full speed toward a treeline with low hanging branches. If the horse manages to throw us off, we’ve lost self-government and the horse becomes the master. It’s up to us to wrestle the reins of power away from the horse and steer the beast in the proper direction.

Ben Franklin predicted that the republic was lost if the people realized they could vote themselves money. As George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." They may be right. Unfortunately, the "Pauls" never realize they’re consigning themselves to be serfs in government’s feudal serfdom.

The Framers’ intent was a government "of the people." Unfortunately, modern politicians act first to extend their political careers (hold their power); the best interests of the people always come second.

The people’s representatives should be citizen legislators serving a limited time and returning to their "real jobs" after a short tour of duty. Eliminating Congressional pensions is a good start---the job wasn’t intended as a career. With less spending and regulation to handle, Congressional sessions could be shorter and fewer new laws would be needed. Congressional payrolls could be reduced accordingly.

We, the people, have the power to limit their terms; it’s obvious that a career Congress won’t do it themselves. We need to vote them out and find citizens willing to serve temporarily. Eliminating Congressional careerism and restoring a lean, constitutional government will make campaign contributions an unattractive, low-return investment---as they should be.

 Copyright Ó1998 Steve Scroggins - All rights reserved.