Campaign Reform D-Day

Today’s the day for members of the House of Representatives to demonstrate that they’re ready to resist the tempting lucre of the nation’s Enrons, unions and rich influence buyers. At last it’s their chance to show that they can do more than smirk cynically at the prospect of returning democracy to the people.

The Shays-Meehan bill banning most so-called “soft money” contributions to candidates offers the best hope in decades for cleaning up the political system. Those in Congress who are sincere about reform must make sure the bill isn’t waylaid by critics with a questionable grasp of the Constitution or stalled by supposed supporters with weaselly excuses for waiting to implement change.

Election after election has seen a steady rise in soft money contributions, which are heaped into party coffers to be used with few restrictions. In the 2000 election cycle the total came to $438 million. The organization Democracy 21 projects that unless Shays-Meehan is enacted, soft money will exceed $750 million in 2004. That’s a lot of dough for average citizens to counter with e-mails, phone calls and whatever’s left in their checking accounts after they pay their housing, grocery, tax and energy bills--all of which happen to be affected by big-bucks lobbying.

After each election, lawmakers piously demand change. But somehow reform always fails. At least that’s what happened before Enron’s collapse gave Americans a rare glimpse into the system. This, after all, is a company that wiped out shareholders while showing great generosity to executives and pols--trying to buy goodwill from almost every congressional committee head, for example, and pumping more money into the 2000 Bush campaign than any other corporate donor.

House Majority Leader J. Dennis Hastert and other leading Republicans claim that the real danger isn’t corporate influence but reform itself, and they are furiously throwing roadblocks into the path of Shays-Meehan. A favorite tactic is to cram the bill with “poison pill” amendments. One requires that if any part of the bill is found unconstitutional by a court, the whole must be nullified. Another approach is to distract legislators with alternative legislation--specifically, the Ney-Wynn bill, which does not ban raising soft money.

Still, if 218 House members hold fast, Shays-Meehan will make it to the Senate relatively intact. For that to happen, California Republicans such as Elton Gallegly (Simi Valley) and Doug Ose (Sacramento) must stay on board. Ose, a backer of reform in the past, now says he is having doubts about Shays-Meehan. He claims it is insufficiently rigorous. In fact, the bill’s ban on soft money is sweeping and comprehensive. It would, among other things, bar federal officeholders and candidates from raising soft money and prohibit such funds from being used by state parties on behalf of federal candidates.

Perhaps those wavering on reform would rather wait till the middle of the decade, when the nation’s profoundly corrupting soft money contributions have doubled, amid more waste of time and energy by leaders grubbing to get their share. Voters shouldn’t be so patient. They should insist that Congress pass Shays-Meehan immediately.