As I was sitting at my computer contemplating what to write about, my first inclination was to put together an objective piece about campaign finance reform.

With Congress returning to session this week, there is a discharge petition pending in the House to force a vote on the Shays-Meehan campaign finance measure. Supporters have the number of votes necessary to force the bill to the House floor for an up or down vote.

I was going to detail the procedural hurdles that Shays-Meehan must conquer despite the success of a discharge petition and weigh the possibility that legislation might actually become law during the 107th Congress. In short, I was going to reserve judgment for another day and write a simple explanation of the current state of the seemingly endless campaign finance saga.

And then I reminded myself that campaign finance reform is an absurdly idealized phenomenon that will do nothing to clean up our political system. I thought I would be doing a disservice by not speaking my mind. After all, campaign finance is a political sacred cow that is thought to be supported by a majority of Americans.

It is easy to believe that setting fire to the First Amendment will ease the need for candidates to raise enormous sums of money to run for office.

Reformers argue that the arithmetic is simple: Money is a manifestation of power and the transfer of money from private hands to incumbents or potential officeholders is a quid pro quo expectation that said politicos will be influenced in an inappropriate manner. The removal of the need to excessively fund raise will lessen the reality or appearance of corruption in our political system.

In essence, this is the anti-capitalist notion that money is inherently evil, coupled with the illiberal idea that all political power must be consolidated in an ultrastatist, centralized locus.

Reform partisans love to attack “special interests.” Corporations, wealthy businessmen and other such “corrupting” forces pose a threat to the purity of our democracy. This theory is inherently weakened by its condemnation of the market system.

America is a nation with a constitutionally-limited government that secures a free market of ideas and a managed market of goods. These United States unabashedly favor the spirit of liberty.

Candidates are financed by a myriad of individuals and groups that gel philosophically with their policy goals. Such support is not by its nature corrupt or corrupting. On the contrary, campaign donors are free to find candidates who support their views, and candidates are free to accept money from donors who meet their standards. In a political system with free and open elections, it is vital to advertise and ethically expected to communicate with constituents.

A privately financed, market-driven political paradigm prohibits the iron fist of the state from directly or indirectly sanctioning specific candidates, parties or ideologies.

I write this column as a reminder that the imposition of legal limits on campaign spending and fund raising is a piecemeal attempt to solve a larger, deeper problem - the ailing health of our liberal democracy.

The American experiment is at a critical juncture. Faced with a deepening cultural divide, unprecedented threats to our national security, and a souring economy, it is imperative our political leadership focuses on key issues affecting the vitality of our democracy.

Campaign finance reform is a Trojan horse that avoids these deeper issues. To ease cultural tensions in America, Congress should liberalize immigration restrictions and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

The forces fighting for campaign finance reform would assert that the aforementioned issues are tainted by a corrupt campaign finance system. On the contrary, the above issues are driven by an interest-based system that allows policy to be directed by those who are philosophically and substantively most adept. Populist solutions to political ills are antiquated and antithetical to the philosophical roots of American democracy.

Passage of campaign finance reform will open a Pandora’s Box of concerns related to increased state involvement in our political processes. Excessive government regulation corrupts politics. The free market of our political system should be left intact.

Congress and the American people should focus on the core social, economic and national security issues that directly affect the long-term viability of our democracy.

Josh Siegel is an international relations senior. Reach him at siegeljo@msu.edu.