But he missed the logical conclusion of his own argument. Strict limits on candidates contributions are simply a bad idea with bad consequences, quite apart from the warm feeling produced by sticking it to politicians. These consequences flow from a few inexorable realities, such as the law of supply and demand and the fact that politics is competitive and candidates want to win. By making any important resource, in this case money, more scarce, campaign regulations actually increase its importance to politicians. Still wanting to win, and hampered by tighter limits, politicians become full-time fundraisers, often at the expense of their constituents and good public policy.
Limits also give a huge advantage to incumbents at the expense of challengers.
Incumbents can rely on greater name ID and the fund-raising advantage inherent in holding office to overwhelm lesser known challengers, whose only hope is to raise enough money to level the playing field. Fifteen throttles that hope. Many federal office holders, living under limits much less stringent than Fifteen's, arrange virtually all their affairs around fund raising. They develop ever more clever methods. Sometimes, probably more often than the public realizes, they cross ethical and legal lines, an example being the most recent scandals coming from the White House and the Democratic National Committee.