Now Showing on C-Span, CNN and your local news channel: "The 1996 Democratic Party Fundraising Blunders and Bloopers." The supporting cast includes Chinese businessmen, Indonesian bankers, Turkish entrepreneurs, and Buddhist nuns. The real leading roles are, of course, played by Hard Money and Soft Money. But the geniuses in the drama, the orchestrators of events--the producers, directors and screen writers--remain out of the spotlight.

While our eyes are focused on the escapades of the Democratic Party's fundraising for the 1996 campaign, legislation is being crafted to curtail the political process and political speech. Congressmen are talking about more restrictions on campaign fundraising. In fact, Senators McCain (R) and Feingold (D) have put together a bill outlawing "soft money," and with the questionable fundraising activities of the Democratic Party as its foil, the bill appears to have great bi-partisan support. In the television media, the issue seems resolved--a "no brainer." But is it?

Campaign contributions are used to finance the marketing of a candidate--selling and promoting her views, values and vision. Selling a candidate and her ideas is very much like selling any good or service. You inform and attempt to persuade. You highlight the merits of your product. Ironically, in his ads for personal injury legal services, Morris Bart seems to be using the same pitch as many politicians, "You're a victim? Let me represent you, and I'll get you a check."

The difference between selling candidates and goods or services is that if you choose Morris Bart to represent you in a legal case or if you go down to your local Ford or Chevy dealership and pick out a car, you will get Bart legal services and the Ford or Chevy you picked. In elections, unlike market products, winner takes all. With political candidates, you might pick a Chevy and drive home in a Ford, or as I did in 1976, pick a Ford and end up with a Carter.

The difference is crucial. It means that people aren't going to spend as much energy in finding out about candidates as finding out about cars or legal services. The result is that candidates have to sell to a market that is not all that interested in listening.

What researchers find in examining markets where selling or advertising is restricted, is that consumers are worse off because they end up with higher prices and less product innovation. The market positions of established brands are almost insured.

What I and others find in examining political markets is the same. Restrict the flow of information in campaigns and candidate competition is reduced. Incumbents then get even greater advantage. Gary Jacobson, a political scientist, refers to campaign spending limits as "Incumbent Reelection Acts."

Incumbents, when facing great competition, must pay close attention to constituent interests or they are likely to lose to a challenger who points out how poor a job the incumbent is doing in representing the voters. Restrict campaign funds and we restrict campaign messages. Restrict campaign messages and we restrict the accountability of politicians to the voters, making it more likely that candidates will follow the wishes of others, such as special interest lobbyists.

The real question that should be asked is "Why do candidates and contributors pay so much?" The answer is that the prize is so high that candidates and their backers will keep spending until it is no longer worth it. One researcher, Filip Palda, finds a strong connection between campaign spending and government spending in gubernatorial races. To reign in campaign spending, we need to reign in the prize, government spending. But none of the actors seem interested in that script.