What does Shrink teach us for BCRA?
No way is BCRA a sham. Rather, the sham is the claim that it reforms campaign finance. To think that Congress in BCRA reformed campaign finance either in the sense of reducing the role of big bucks and special interests, and/or reducing the incumbent-challenger gap, and/or reducing the extent to which we allow economic realities to drown our commitment to one person one voteis naive. First, the history of campaign finance, from its beginning, is noted above.[3] Second, does anyone believe that Members of Congress are less interested in protecting their jobs and status than the state legislatures that in the past two years have enacted the most incumbent-protective redistricting ever, producing record noncompetitiveness in House races?[4] Incumbent protection is anti-democratic, not merely not reform. Any reform element in BCRA is overwhelmed by four incumbent-protection provisions: 1) The Millionaires Amendment: Mortals fear God, but incumbents fear self-funding candidates. As John McC
