It is a shame the Tribune could do nothing more than release an arrogant attack poodle barking with no bite for the rest of this campus to have to deal with. As a supporter of campaign finance reform, I could not be more ashamed to read John Heiderscheidt's column on Oct. 18.

Mr. Heiderscheidt, if you would like to adhere to campaign finance reform, I do not see how you cannot bring up the fiasco involving Tom DeLay. By focusing on Gwen Moore, you have not provided a good example of corporate influence crowding out 'the little guy.' According to the DC Fiscal Policy Institute's census analysis of 40 major cities in America in 2000, Milwaukee ranked number one in City-Suburban Poverty Disparity, with a poverty rate in the city of 21.3 percent compared to a suburban poverty rate of 3.6 percent. In an area where poverty rates are so high, I welcome labor unions bringing worker concerns to the table as unemployment and underemployment are major concerns in poverty stricken areas. I remind you all of this is legal, versus the illegal use of funds by Mr. Delay.

If you are going to argue locally, however, about the "bloated corporations" controlling politics, I would call your attention to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's district, consisting of mostly wealthy suburbanites. According to OpenSecrets.org, Sensenbrenner has taken $175,621 from business PAC contributions alone. Within these PAC contributions are numerous conglomerations of the corporate world you disdain. It is doubtful the "little guy" you speak of is represented here.

However, are interest group politics really all that is at play in Sensenbrenner's case? I say more is involved here, including partisan gerrymandering, the spoils of incumbency advantage and seniority issues in congress, all explaining why Sensenbrenner is a safe bet for businesses to invest in as he has been in office far too long with little challenge.

You speak of getting free time for political candidates on television and radio, so find a way to do this and write about it. You speak of putting caps on how much a candidate can spend, yet if the money spent is one's own, then capping spending of it would violate free speech. If you intended to argue for caps on interest group donations, know that PAC's are capped, and disclosure laws allow us to check contributions.

What should be looked at rather, are the groups which do not record their lobbying and pass it off as public relations. The new reliance of businesses on advocacy for profit is another problem, and the atomization of interest groups into different sectors, including non-profit areas that bypass certain tax-codes. Look also at possible upper class biases in interest groups, the never-ending advocacy of some groups, the organizational sclerosis factor, and the fact that policy advocacy encourages change through the same cliques of people. Most of all, look at dirty Republicans like Tom Delay.

Do not, however, be quick to go overboard. Elizabeth Clemens around 1890-1925 said lobbying came to fit American public policy making better than did parties or election. With interest groups come change over slow movements of the party system. Before the late 1800s, social institutions were sometimes dormant due to lack of pressure. Society's evolution into interest group politics can mean more interests can play politics well, more can get access and relay good information to politicians, and interest groups could lose their access at any time if not careful.

All of these factors of interest groups are pro-democracy to me.

This viewpoint was published in The Marquette Tribune on October 27, 2005.