Structural engineers never bitch about the force of gravity nor aeronautical engineers about air friction. These are merely forces with which they contend.

These observations come from a casual, but substantial survey conducted during recent travels. Whenever I met an aeronautical or structural engineer I'd simply inquire, "Have you or any of your colleagues ever bitched about gravity or air friction?"

The response was consistent. It was always some form of "Huh?" And I'd have to elaborate like some dunce asking if golf balls hit out of sight ever come down. I'd clarify. "In college bull sessions with fellow engineering students, or later as an engineer, did anyone complain that your work would be easier, more satisfying, if you could ignore the force of gravity (or air friction)?"

Ultimately, he would say something like: "Of course not (you dunce) that's the way the world is. We accept and accommodate the forces with improved techniques. We design planes to fly higher where air is thinner and the friction drag is less. Or we design bridges or cranes with lighter, stronger, more strategically placed materials. We never even think about changing elemental forces. They are beyond our control".

My inquiries were motivated by two observations, the media's fixation on campaign spending and finance reform, and reformers bemoaning the influence of special interests. No engineer saw the analogy of this problem with gravitational or air friction forces.

The Economist, a British magazine with a strong interest in her former colony, ran a piece on November 11th, "Selling America to the highest bidder". It noted that America, "…would be wise to make sure that its own political system is not rotting from within".

It went on to note that this year's election has been the most expensive in our history (four billion dollars were spent on federal and state contests). This is up 50 percent from 1996. The "soft money" contributions from unions, corporations, and trial lawyers, have nearly doubled in that period.

It's unlikely that people with millions to invest are increasingly stupid or irrational. Few highly successful individuals with money to burn do so with no expectations of returns. Rather, money fuels the engine which runs the machinery of plunder and privilege.

Like gravity, it's really quite straightforward. As government determines ever more opportunities, wealth transfers, preferences, and protections, renting politicians becomes an increasingly valuable strategic investment. In this context, expecting campaign finance reform reducing the influence of interested parties, is analogous to asking gravity or air friction to be reduced.

America is hostage to a political system which allocates advantages.

As the world's economy becomes ever more integrated, those of us in the productive sector, say wool, wood, or wheat, experience ever greater competition. Information and transportation costs drop each year. It now costs less to ship a vehicle to Montana from Japan or Korea than from Detroit. Politicians compete to protect specific interests from this competition.

Here's another example. As dissatisfaction with government schools increases, some parents, especially minorities, seek more responsive alternatives. This threatens teacher unions. Hence they mobilize to thwart school choice initiatives. Silicon Valley's Tim Draper invested 20 million dollars of his own money on a school-voucher initiative but was badly beaten by the education establishment. Teachers unions enjoy their monopoly and invest to protect it.

Organized interests look to government to protect them from, or compensate them for, the consequences of such threats. When government controls or biases outcomes, buying political influence is a rational investment of mobilization or money. In this context, it is nearly as silly to expect meaningful campaign reform as it is to complain about the force of gravity or friction of air. When governments allocate values, people compete to influence that allocation. Only the means of influence will vary.

In principle, however, unlike gravity or air friction, we can change the scope, role, and power of government. For example, as the public, non-governmental sector demonstrates greater competence and efficiency than its political counterpart, some people see the advantages and opt for less government. This is clearly happening in the conservation arena.

However, until the non-governmental public sector is widely accepted, and until the forces of global competition triumph, we can expect public policy to be sold to the highest bidder. Only the currency will vary.

Like gravitational forces and the friction of air, that's the way the world works. It's irresponsible to pretend otherwise while advocating reform.