Duncan Black

I mostly greeted the recent Supreme Court decision, which struck down limits on an individual's aggregate contributions to candidates over an election cycle, with an indifferent shrug. It wasn't because I agreed with the legal reasoning of the majority, or because I'm unconcerned with the disproportionate impact of money on politics and legislation. It was because I've long thought campaign finance reform laws focused on restraining contributions to federal candidates and political parties were, at best, a game of legal Whac-A-Mole which served to divert attention from the broader problem politics had with big money.

Years ago, as a new blogger and fledgling political activist, I began fundraising for federal candidates by encouraging my readers to contribute. Over about a 10-year period I've brought in somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million dollars, most of which was raised for for elections which happened from 2004 to 2008.

Along with others in what became known as the liberal "netroots" movement, I thought I was helping to offer an alternative to big money. The Internet, new information gatekeepers, and innovative contribution processing systems like ActBlue created the possibility for a new reliance on small donors for political candidates. I could make my national readership aware of a House race in, say, Minnesota, and help direct a non-trivial amount of money to that candidate. This wasn't about me, personally, being a power broker. It was about a network of voices and contributors all over the country trying to make an impact by providing an alternative donor model.

But over time this small donor model didn't seem to catch on quite as much as I hoped that it would. While candidates are generally happy to collect money from any legal source, and relatively unknown challengers tend to more aggressively seek small donor money, incumbents especially seemed to be relatively uninterested in making the relatively small steps necessary to increase their reliance on small, rather than large, dollar contributions and contributors.

What I came to realize was that one dollar from a rich person was more valuable than one dollar from a not-so-rich person. Or, more specifically, that $1,000 in campaign contributions from a rich person was more valuable than 100 campaign contributions of $10.

This isn't simply because it's easier to raise money in big chunks than in small ones. That's sometimes the case, but one would think that having your campaign staffer send out a fundraising e-mail or receiving mostly unsolicited money from some enthusiastic supporters from around the country was easier than the indignities of cold-calling rich donors off of a list. I've witnessed members of Congress doing that, and it doesn't look like it's very much fun.

The truth is that surrounding yourself with wealthy people has its advantages. Life is a long game, and we all have careers and income streams to worry about. There are advantages for elected officials, their staffers, and, frankly, everybody working at high enough levels in all branches of government to networking with people who might be able to help them later.

I'm not alleging widespread corruption or illegality, though of course there is some of that, too, but simply highlighting inevitable human nature. Congressional office, campaign and committee staffers, some of whom are not very well compensated, look forward to future lives as lobbyists. Regulators look forward to working forward to the firms they once regulated. Your elected representative looks forward to a future career serving on corporate boards of directors.

Wealthy people aren't just able to help people get elected and re-elected. They're able to provide them, and their staffers, with much more than that. Even with a Supreme Court that was more friendly to the legal wishes of those working on campaign finance reform issues, and a Congress that more was inclined to pass legislation dealing with this issues, I'm not sure what could be done. The influence of concentrated wealth on our politics is a problem, but it's a much bigger problem than can be dealt with by enforcing contribution limits to federal election candidates.

Duncan Black writes the blogEschatonunder the pseudonym of Atrios and is a fellow at Media Matters for America.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors . To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.