A friend of Matt Bai is correct in assigning the writer the label "irrationally exuberant" for his opinions on campaign finance which appear in the NYT article, "The Post-Money Era." I look forward to the day when a member of the mainstream media, particularly the networks, examine the role of their employers in receiving much of the money that arrives to finance candidates' political campaigns. The corruption is flagrant and painfully apparent in the months leading up to every election. In place of honest reporting, the various interest groups fight it out in ads purchased for showing on network TV, cable, in handouts, mailings, billboards and wherever else they can find to publicize their viewpoint. The news outlets substitute commercials for news reporting. The role of the courts, which Bai also did not examine or even allude to, has stood for the pretense that campaign financing, as we know it, fortifies First Amendment freedoms. Of course, it fortifies the free speech freedoms of those who can afford it, thereby tearing the United States into those who can afford to publicize their viewpoints and those who can not. Bai expects one third of Americans to be able to shut out commercials in a few years via Tivo and like devices. While many people have a mute button if they can find the remote control, speeding through or ignoring commercials does not address how electoral campaigns are funded, and that is where this article fails.