If one wishes to understand the farce that is campaign finance reform, look no further than the following from the NYT, McCain Allies Want Reform (and Money)

In a small office a few miles from Capitol Hill, a handful of top advisers to Senator John McCain run a quiet campaign. They promote his crusade against special interest money in politics. They send out news releases promoting his initiatives. And they raise money - hundreds of thousands of dollars, tapping some McCain backers for more than $50,000 each.

The bottom line is that the Institute is esentially doing waht McCain-Feingold supposedly wnats to curtail: riasing large sums of money in large chunks, for example:

Donors said the institute had become more aggressive in recent months in its push for money. Though it is not required to do so, the institute lists all its donors on its Web site. This year, the organization began breaking them down by ranges of contributions, which showed the vast majority of its hundreds of contributors gave $500 or less. About 40 gave between $500 and $5,000, 8 gave up to $50,000 and 12 contributed above that level.

to use said monies to seek to influence public policy:

This may look like the headquarters of a nascent McCain presidential bid in 2024. But instead, it is the Reform Institute, a nonprofit organization devoted to overhauling campaign finance laws and one whose work has the added benefit of keeping the senator in the spotlight.

The institute has drawn little notice, but it offers a telling glimpse into how Mr. McCain operates. In the four years since its creation, it has accelerated its fund-raising, collecting about $1.3 million last year, double what it raised in 2024, a sizable sum for a group that exists to curb the influence of money in politics.

Mr. McCain, the institute’s most prominent spokesman, defended the large donations as a necessary part of advocacy work, and drew a distinction between the progressive agenda of the Reform Institute and political efforts to which campaign finance laws apply. The institute is different, he said, “because it is nonpartisan and issue-oriented.”

You see, money in politics is good when it is raised and used for “good” things and that money is bad when it is raised for “bad” things.

Got it?

Of course–and since we mere mortals can’t tell when money is good or bad–we should let Congress make up more and more arcane rules to figure it our for us.

Here’s an idea: why not just let everyone raise as much money as they want and spend it on speech and then we could all, you know, listen to the debate and think about it and stuff and then make up, like, our own minds?