Let's talk some more about all that money in politics, shall we?

.

... and we'll let Ms. Pelosi lead the way.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) celebrated the 25th anniversary of her election to Congress today at an event moderated by television personality Rachel Maddow, blasting the role of money in campaigns and outlining her plans to increase the number of women in politics.

Pelosi also offered surprisingly warm praise for former President George W. Bush as she recounted how Democrats defeated his proposal to change Social Security and she recounted an unusual anecdote about how the ghosts of past women leaders spoke to her at her first White House meeting as Speaker.

The event had a valedictory feel that might encourage speculation about Pelosi retiring some time in the near future.

In December, the late Andrew Breitbart’s website quoted Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, saying, “She would retire right now if the donors she has didn’t want her to stay so badly.” The former Speaker’s office strongly denied Pelosi was retiring.

In contrast to any indication of retiring, Pelosi asserted her power over the Democratic Caucus just hours before the event, urging Members to fill out fundraising cards that indicated if they were donating or instead were “not on the team.”

(italics, ours)

5 paragraphs; 1 reference to how evil money in politics is; 2 references to how important money is to politics; you do the math.

It's pretty easy to see the logic: when your candidate forgoes public financing as he did back in 2008 and was poised to raise $1 billion for his 2012 presidential campaign, it's seen as a measure of the enthusiasm for the man and his policies.

However, when your side gets its ass kicked as it did Tuesday in Wisconsin, all that money in politics is seen as a corrupting influence, indeed.

Gang, it's all pretty simple: There's money in politics and to hear some people say, far too much money, because of the influence it purchases. Not wanting to take this to a ridiculous extreme but to illustrate a point, if the federal government contented itself with guarding the coasts, delivering the mail and paving the roads, we all know there'd be virtually no money in politics - you could grease the postman on your own - you wouldn't need to grease your Congressman.

But that's not the way it is, isn't it? We have allowed government intrusion into all facets of our lives, fortunes and business to the point where politics has an out-sized importance and then where the direction and weight of that importance can be influenced by money.

Yes, government is to blame but who put that government into place? In ademocracy constitutional republic post-constitutional republic we still usually get what we desire from our elected leaders and thus government. If we desire for the government to exercise some restraint perhaps we should do so as well.

.