Tony Snow makes a point that could come straight out of the AP GOvernment curriculum. We just finished talking about how political parties are weaker today than they used to be. The party leaders often can't keep their members in line when it comes to votes in Congress. For example, think of the GOP Congressmen who just came out with a list of pork to be eliminated in order to pay for Katrina. Tom Delay and Denny Hastert were certainly not happy to have GOP backbenchers start proposing things like postponing the prescription drug benefit or cutting out the subsidy to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

One of the many causes of this weakening of party discipline has been campaign finance reform. Candidates now raise their own money and aren't as dependent on the parties for their funds. Well, McCain-Feingold has intensified this effect because now the bulk of money in campaign advertising and get out the vote efforts comes from 527s. And whoever is raising that money calls the shots. And for the Democratic Party, that means that the likes of George Soros has more influence with the politicians than they would have before John McCain and Russ Feingold decided that they needed to make politics free of money. And we all know how that has turned out.

The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, designed grandly to "take money out of politics," predictably produced the opposite effect. It sucked in a flood of cash, gutted the major political parties and made poseurs more unaccountable than ever before.

The old villain, "soft money," merely changed names under McCain-Feingold. Lawyers now call it "527 money." Wealthy activists can spend like crazy through 527s, but with one significant difference from the old days: Before "reform," political parties could marginalize lunatics. Now, plutocrats rule without restraint from political pros.

Democrats find themselves beholden to a batch of petulant billionaires, led by George Soros, Peter Lewis and Steven Bing. That trio alone contributed nearly $65 million to Democratic candidates and causes during the 2004 election cycle.

All told, Democrats raised more than $318 million in 527 money between 2002 and 2004, while Republicans lagged far behind at $206 million.

These figures don't include presidential expenditures, which again show a huge advantage for the Plutocrat Party -- $182 million for Democrats; $64 million for Republicans.

Much of this cash went to such organizations as MoveOn.org, the Joint Victory Campaign 2004, the Media Fund and the now-defunct America Coming Together -- all of which spent tens of millions of dollars on such losing causes as John Kerry's candidacy, opposition to the Iraq war and attempts to crush John Roberts' original nomination to the Supreme Court.

Their efforts failed because they offended people. As Americans shelled out millions of dollars to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, for instance, MoveOn broadcast ads that made George Bush the Satanic heavy for bad weather and poorly constructed levees. The spots reflected George Soros' apparent belief that his spite was more compelling than Katrina victims' plight.

Similarly, the raging plutocrats are underwriting the likes of Cindy Sheehan, who showed solidarity with hurricane victims by demanding the removal of all federal troops from New Orleans, and Michael Moore, who plans to produce a crockumentary on Hurricane Katrina.

Tony Snow thinks this explains why a guy like Harry Reid would come out against John Roberts. I'm not sure that the line of causality runs as cleanly as that since the Democrats were filibustering people like Miguel Estrada before McCain Feingold passed. But it is clear that the 527s have driven the Party to the left. And the result hasn't been pretty.