Campaign Reform Showdown

This is showdown week in Washington for attempts to reform the nation’s shamelessly lax campaign finance laws. At issue is a scaled-down bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) that would prohibit the national political parties from receiving unlimited amounts of campaign contributions known as “soft money.”

By the end of this week, members of the U.S. Senate must decide whether they are content with the corrupting influences of the present system or have the courage to make a small but dramatic change for the better.

This is an uphill battle, but victory can be achieved with a minimum of good faith from both sides. Alas, opponents of McCain-Feingold approached the issue not in good faith but with cynicism. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) countered with his own bill, which would strip labor unions of their authority to use member dues for political contributions.

Such a diversionary tactic is typical of those waged by the foes. If there was a fair up-or-down vote on the legislation, the bill probably would pass the Senate. But the opponents fear a vote on the merits of the issue for that very reason and are expected to attempt to kill the legislation. First they will seek a vote to table the measure. If that fails, they will try a filibuster, which takes 60 votes to break. In this fashion, opponents can say they did not vote against campaign reform but merely on procedural issues.

Opponents claim the ban on soft money would violate a contributor’s 1st Amendment right to free speech. But the reform bill does not prevent a contributor from giving to one of the national parties. It merely restricts such a contribution to the amount that a person may now legally give a candidate--generally $1,000.

The opponents fear change might give an advantage to one party over another, although it probably would not. Secondly, they believe reform of the present system would assist challengers running against them. There may be something to that argument because the present system is so steeply tilted in favor of incumbents.

This is a risk that many senators are willing to take in the interest of better, saner, fairer government--a government that could earn back respect from a disenchanted electorate. The votes of just a few more courageous senators are needed. But they are needed now.