"Trying to take money out of politics is like trying to take jumping out of basketball"

Attempting to separate money from politics is presented as an inherently impossible or unnatural task, likened to removing a fundamental aspect of a sport. Just as jumping is essential to the very nature of basketball, integral to shooting, defending, and rebounding, money is depicted as an intrinsic part of the political process. Bill Bradley, himself a former professional basketball player and U.S. senator, uses this analogy to point out the futility or perhaps even the naivety in trying to completely sever the connection between financial resources and political influence.

Money, in the context of politics, enables everything from campaign advertising, organizing events, hiring staff, to getting a candidate’s message across to a wide audience. It becomes a tool that not only facilitates participation in the political arena but also often determines levels of competitive viability. Candidates or causes with more funding can sustain longer campaigns, reach more voters, and shape public opinion more effectively. The analogy suggests that just as basketball without jumping would be an entirely different game, possibly lacking excitement or even functionality, politics without money would lose a central driving mechanism.

Bradley’s view, encapsulated in this phrase, conveys skepticism toward reforms that seek to wholly purify politics of financial influences. He seems to argue that financial contributions, lobbying, and fundraising are embedded in the structure of representative democracy in much the same way athletic skills are in sports. The statement invites reflection about whether the focus should be on mitigating the corrosive effects of excessive or hidden money in politics rather than on the prospect of removing it altogether. Ultimately, it recognizes the persistent and dynamic interplay of resources and power, implying the need for realistic and pragmatic approaches to campaign finance reform.