The thought occurred to me this morning after I awoke from a good night’s sleep.

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss Tuesday to tea party candidate Dave Brat in the Virginia Republican Party primary Tuesday might have dealt a serious blow to the cause of campaign finance reform.

Why? Cantor outspent his Brat by something like 25 to 1 in a losing bid to keep his congressional seat.

Cantor was the well-funded superstar within the Republican Party. He had it all: looks, brains, the “right” ideology,” a gift of gab, ambition. You name it, he had it.

He also had money. Lots of it, which he spent lavishly to hold on to his House seat.

None of it worked. Brat is a college professor who’s never run for public office at any level.

Yet he beat Cantor by 11 percentage points in a shamefully low voter-turnout primary.

What happens, then, to effort to limit campaign spending? The argument always has been that money buys votes, that it buys people’s loyalty, and that it gives deep-pocketed donors more influence than Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe in setting public policy.

Dave Brat’s stunner in Virginia has just blown the daylights out of those arguments.

Let that discussion get fired up all over again.