Nothing comes from Nothing, even in D.C.
Lets face it,
it takes money to run a campaign. I have a friend who tried to run for state office and was unsuccessful due to money. His largest problem in gaining money for his campaign was that he tried to do it outside the system. It wasn't a winning strategy. Appealing and manipulating existing voting bases is always easier then starting your own. People prefer options that are often emotion based, history based, socially based and in general a case of herd mentality. It is interesting that money has become the voice of the people. He who gathers the most of it usually wins. It doesn't matter if the candidate has money of their own or is as rich as Midas, If they try to fund their own campaign from their pocket they generally lose.
There is no sense being puritanical about it. in fact morals have nothing to do with how money is gathered. It is true that those in power like to assign morals to the subject but what should it matter who votes for a candidate with their money? If a person is backed by scum that should tell you what they stand for right?
The big problem comes in the rule of Quid pro quo. In Latin as some know, that means "this for that." The problem is corruption. Understanding that no one just gives money to someone else without expecting something in return. Corruption might be also called consumer pressure. If you buy stock you expect to have some say (especially if your interest is dominant) in the future of the company. Why not have that same voice in how politicians run their affairs. It would seem that there are many who have something to either lose or gain should this right not be stigmatized. It is also interesting that the people who are corrupting politicians care more about politics and what happens in politics then the people crying about corruption. Perhaps if we were all corrupting politicians people would start caring enough to change what government does in ways that the populous actually wants.
Of the existing political engines that are allowed to corrupt politicians here are a few that are publicly acknowledged. There are PAC's which are groups of people who pool money in order to aid the political process. P.A.C. stands for Political Action Comity. There are lobbyist who have an axe to grind of some sort or other and are willing to aid politicians back pockets in order to be heard. When politicians can also be lobbyists under the law that gets screwy. There are General Political Funds where people give to a party and the party decides who they want to run in an election. I have even heard tell of consolation prize federal funds that become available to candidates who run for third parties if they can attain a certain percentage of people to vote for them. Every year, government finds new ways of funding themselves. It isn't like they are going to handle your problems and shoulder your cares for free.
I think it is about time that people stop white washing their intents the effect money has on politics. Politicians are not priests. Unless you make yourselves the papacy. What sort of cannon to you make them recite in order to keep you comfortable. How much power over things to you give them, hoping that they won't be tempted? is it really fair to hold government responsible for the things we make them do because we are either incapable or unwilling to make those decisions ourselves. In getting bored with C-Span because we don't want to know what they do or be active in responding to what they say or do, do we consent by default? I think we do.