The argument, one articulation of which appears today on the facing page, is at least in part that candidates from lower-income districts would have more trouble raising money under the terms of the bill than those from wealthier constituencies. That may be true, but it doesn't translate into the kind of disadvantage that the objectors suggest. A candidate from a low-income district will by definition face a rival from the same district. If the pool of available funds turns out in fact to be low, it will be low for both. Rich folks aren't snatching seats from poor ones, not in this sense, anyway.
Money does in fact make a regrettable difference in politics, a large one.
People with money are able to buy influence, and regularly do, often to the disadvantage of people who have less money. The current tax-cut debate is a classic example. But that's precisely the influence that this bill sets out to reduce. Campaign finance reform will produce more equitable government, not less. The caucus members, insofar as they oppose it, would seem to us to be opposing the very interests they profess to protect.