Here’s to Campaign Reform

It took seven years of bickering for Congress to pass campaign finance reform, but the final fight wasn’t even close. The Senate’s historic 60-40 vote approving the Shays-Meehan bill banning “soft money” showed that even political pragmatists can become reformers when inspired by public outrage.

And, boy, was the public mad, thanks in part to revelations about the attempts of failed energy giant Enron to buy goodwill and influence. Now President Bush too has seen the light and indicated he will sign the bill.

It can’t happen soon enough. In 1974, rattled by the Watergate scandal, Congress passed election reform intended to limit the influence of wealthy corporations and individuals. But the system was undermined by soft money--unregulated donations that corporations, unions and individuals were allowed to make to party organizations. Congress and presidential candidates became addicted to it. In the 2000 election, Democrats and Republicans together raised almost $500 million of the insidious stuff.

Foes of campaign finance reform, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), thought they could endlessly stall efforts to close this lucrative loophole. But McConnell’s threats to filibuster the bill went nowhere, and it passed intact. So now he will challenge Shays-Meehan in court, arguing that it would unconstitutionally limit the right to free speech.

We think that argument is spurious and hope the courts do too. Meanwhile, the next move for those who want to fix the system will be to strengthen, or replace, the Federal Election Commission. The opponents of campaign finance reform are right about one thing: Lawyers will be able to evade restrictions. But not if a beefed-up commission polices the reforms from the outset.

These, however, are considerations for the future. For now, voters can celebrate a victory over the forces that have corrupted and polluted national politics.