Time to conclude my review of the Inside OC face-off over TIN CUP 2 between Moorlach Chief of Staff Mario Mainero and GOP consultant Adam Probolsky.

At one point, host Rick Reiff asks if TIN CUP protects incumbents:

Does this actually protect incumbents? No. It's the other way around. Incumbents already have a natural advantage. For example, in the most recent supervisorial races, incumbents raised about $250 per person more than their challenger. However, without limits you'd have that gap increase.

Of course, generally speaking supervisors have a natural, incumbency-based advantage over a challenge. And without contribution limits, a supervisor would be able to raise more than with limits. But that misses the point.

A challenger doesn't need to raise more than the incumbent. A challenger needs to raise enough to communicate his or her message and undercut the incumbent's support. If you are a challenger running against an incumbent supervisor, would you be able to raise a bigger warchest more quickly under a regime of contribution limits or without such limits?

The answer is obviously the latter. An incumbent's fundraising advantage over a challenger is comparatively greater with contribution limits than without contribution limits.

The 2006 Sheriff's race is a good example of this dynamic. Carona's opponents didn't need to raise more money than him. They only needed to raise enough to communicate their message to voters and force him into a run-off. TIN CUP made that impossible.

Mario continues:

More to the point, you would also have the ability for someone, say The Irvine Company, which does a lot of business with the county, and I'm not saying they'd do this, but they'd have the ability to perhaps buy elections by spending a million dollars on each of the five races and then you'd have the perception -- which the Supreme Court has said is an important consideration -- the perception of a problem. This starts eliminating a lot of that.

That argument is a total canard.

Let's look at Mario's scenario and imagine for a moment The Irvine Company kicked a million dollars into three supervisor campaigns. Does anyone think the blogosphere, the local mainstream media and the opposing campaigns would not go haywire and make the public aware of those million dollar contributions? Such a contribution would hugely backfire on the candidates and the donors alike.

Orange County has a very vibrant political media that subjects county government to very close scrutiny. A free political market -- the print and blog media, and the competing candidates and campaigns -- will do a much more effective job of ferreting out special interest contributions and influence than clunky and restrictive campaign finance regulations.

And trusting that political free market is squarely within our tradition of being a free, self-governing people than paternalistic government agencies regulating how, when and where we can participate in the election process.

Finally, Rick Reiff asked Mario if he likes Shirley. Mario's reply:

Actually I do like her because you know what, she is lobbying, she is lobbying for the people of Orange County, she's lobbying for clean government.

I'm glad Mario like Shirley, But anyone who's been involved in county politics for any length of time knows Shirley Grindle plays favorites. If you're on her good side, you get a pass. If she doesn't like you, she makes it her business to use campaign finance laws to make your life miserable.

Shirley Grindle was AWOL during the long-controversy over Sup. Janet Nguyen's illegal legal defense fund, but she filed  a groundless complaint against Trung Nguyen in what she admitted was a purely retaliatory action.

Why? Because her antagonism toward Mike Schroeder trump everything else. Personalities matter more than principles -- so why would the Board of Supervisors want to enshrine that attitude in a county regulatory agency?