Campaign Finance: Position vs. Money in Politics

What is more important in a political campaign, money or strategy? With the Democrat nomination contest, we now have an important test case. Dean still leads the other candidates in money, with many times more than Kerry, the current front runner, who was so broke a few weeks ago that he had to refinance his house. That advantage didn’t matter in Iowa, will it make a difference from now on?
Sun Tzu's strategy tells us the opposite of what we have been hearing for years. Position generates money. Money does not generate position. What Sun Tzu tells us that because of the change in position, the money will stop flowing to Dean and start going to Kerry. Expect news reports about Dean’s money problems within a few weeks. Reports on Kerry’s wealth will soon follow.
So what does this tell us about campaign finance reform, which is predicated on the power of money in politics? According to Sun Tzu, all competition is economic at its core. Both attackers and defenders need resources, but attackers need more resources. In politics, money tends to flow to incumbents because of their position. The money, however, does them less good because their positions are already known. The challengers who are unknown and have no position in the public’s mind are the ones who need money to buy awareness. Attack is always more expensive than defense.
Incumbents know this. By taking money out of the race with campaign finance laws, they know that they are basically making it harder for challengers to unseat them. They are giving up money, which they didn’t need because they had the superior position, in order to deny it to their challengers, who have no position and therefore need it. These are incumbency protection laws, not campaign reform laws.