Campaign finance reform has always been a partisan wedge, insofar as the party that loses the most seats in a given election cycle is the one touting how much it's needed, but shuts up the next cycle when they gain the most seats. Thus, the only politicians willing to put money into that fight are either already outnumbered, or just crazy (or smart) enough to vote against their own future reelection.
> the only politicians willing to put money into that fight are either already outnumbered, or just crazy (or smart) enough to vote against their own future reelection
1. This division doesn't fall strictly on party lines, which was my point.
2. With a modicum of cleverness you can get around the immediate issue (politicians don't want to give their opponents a leg up in the next election) by engineering the changes to phase in one position at a time and "lock in place" only when beneficial to the incumbent (e.g. in a year when corporate support backs out for one reason or another).
