Mark Schmitt is right “that the most fundamental problem to be addressed in American politics is the extent to which radical economic inequality reinforces and in turn is reinforced by inequality in the political system.” He and others who have weighed in are also right that the failure of public financing demands a strategic re-thinking about how to build firewalls between the inequality of the market and the equality of citizenship that democracy requires.

But pouring more money into the system through subsidies for small donations doesn’t rise to the level of the problem. Rather, Mark’s admonition to think of values “other than corruption,” appears to throw in the towel on the fight against undue influence by the rich and powerful. This is a classic liberal retreat – “throwing money at the problem” (Having done it myself, I know it when I see it) rather than digging in and fighting for structural change.

In this case, the predictable result would be a transfer of funds from the taxpayers and the public sector to the pockets of advertisers and media moguls, as well as an accelerated inflation of the cost of running for office. Not what America needs.

Size counts in politics. As individuals, a thousand donors contributing $25 are not even on the radar screen of political influence. They are no match for someone who can write a check for $25,000. That’s why bundling is so important. Small donors finish last.

The root cause of the dilemma is of course the unequal distribution of income and wealth. But the technical obstacle is the perverse interpretation of the First Amendment, sanctioned by the Supreme Court. We tie ourselves up in Gordian slip-knots like McCain-Feingold as we talk around that 800 pound gorilla squatting on the campaign finance table. Indeed, the bickering among the reform insiders that quickly surfaced in this blog debate shows the confusion and disarray that Buckley vs. Vallejo continues to inflict on us. So why not go directly at the source with a constitutional amendment that gives Congress the right to limit campaign spending?

It’s hardly a new idea. Dave Obey, Barney Frank and a few other Democrats introduced a bill to do just that a few years ago. And I think Mark’s old boss, Bill Bradley once proposed the same thing. But it’s the idea that if enacted, has the best chance of dealing with the issue by starving the beast.

A constitutional amendment campaign would of course be a lot of work to organize etc. But – unlike so many progressive proposals -- it would start with the overwhelming majority of the people – on the right left and center -- on its side, i.e., who think that politics in Washington is corrupted through and through by big money. Limiting campaign contributions to X dollars a head is likely to be much more popular than using public money to subsidize political campaigns at a time when leaders of both parties are telling voters that there aren’t enough funds for health care, education or cleaning up the environment.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer – or a lawyer of any kind – but isn’t an effort to defend democracy just the kind of issue that the amendment process is supposed to deal with?

The reluctance of we progressives to launch a frontal attack on the Buckley-Vallejo decision in order to deal with the “most fundamental” issue we face, stands in stark contrast to the self-confidence and aggressiveness of our political adversaries on the Right who are ready at a moment’s notice to amend the constitution to stop flag-burning, abortion, same-sex marriage and other hobgoblins of their fevered brains. Perhaps, borrowing on Mark’s notion of political “intensity,” they really care more about their issues than we care about ours.