McCain-Feingold to the rescue - defense of McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill - Letter to the Editor - Brief Article

There is a line of argument making the rounds these days ("Small Favors," April and May issues) that the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform bill: 1) will not make much difference, even if it passes; and 2) has no hope of passing anyway.

Wrong on both counts.

Among its other provisions, McCain-Feingold would make two significant reforms of our dilapidated campaign-finance system -- it would ban "soft money," and it would help open up the electoral system to more people.

If you want to make the case that our current system of funding campaigns corrupts the political process and undermines the faith of the American people in their own electoral system, soft money would be exhibit number one. During the 1996 election cycle, the two major parties raised about $263 million in soft money, more than three times what they raised during the 1991-1992 cycle. That money is raised from some of the wealthiest interests in this country, which further tilts the process away from most Americans. Shutting down the flow of that money would make a huge difference.

The other major provision of our bill -- the voluntary spending limits for candidates -- would help give ordinary Americans the opportunity to run for office. By requiring candidates who accept these voluntary restrictions to raise at least 60 percent of their funds from individuals in their home states, we lead candidates back to the people they are supposed to represent. By offering a block of free television time and additional discounted time for adhering to the voluntary restrictions, we give candidates who do not have huge treasuries a chance to compete.

These are not insignificant reforms; they will reduce the influence of big money on our elections and our policy-making process and make it possible for more people to get involved in that process. I support public financing, and I have introduced legislation to set up a public-financing system, but McCain-Feingold, while not the final answer, is genuine reform with a solid base of support.

Can this legislation pass? Clearly, as The Progressive has noted, the climate of public opinion for action on campaign-finance reform is growing hotter. I am convinced we are reaching the point where the reform effort cannot be denied. I am also convinced it will take a combination of efforts, from grassroots organizing to the halls of Congress, to reach our goal.

COPYRIGHT 1997 The Progressive, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group