Campaign Finance Reform stinks of partisan politics on both sides

By 9:00 on that busy Thursday morning in mid-February, I had already taken over 20 calls on the Shays-Meehan amendment to the Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) bill that was to be voted on later that day in the House. There was Sally from Timonium, Lorraine from Dundalk and Fred from Falls Church ? all calling their local Congressman, urging him to vote in favor of Campaign Finance Reform. "You Republicans would never get elected if it wasn't for soft money," was the overwhelming consensus from some of the Congressman's more partisan constituents. This bitter dialogue by the Democrats got me wondering what, in deed, was the deal? Since when did this issue become so important? I decided to do some investigating.

My search uncovered some interesting phenomena. First, let me define some key terms that are thrown around by pundits on both sides of the debate. Hard money is any form of direct contribution of funding from an individual, organization, or corporation to a candidate. These contributions are regulated by the Federal Election Committee and generally cannot exceed $2,000 per individual. Soft money encompasses all funding that is not recorded by the government, mostly in the form of contributions to the parties themselves. CFR, in plain terms, seeks to put heavy restrictions on the use of soft money during elections.

The issue of CFR, once a piece of commonsense, bi-partisan legislation, has now become a political monster. Let's get one thing straight: NO politician, with a few notable exceptions, wants to eliminate soft money from his or her campaign. Still, there seems to be a consensus among Democrats that massive campaign finance reform must be done now in order to ensure a better, more stable Democracy for the upcoming elections ? and beyond. With all of this talk, one may begin to believe that Democrats don't rely at all on soft money. Along those same lines, people have begun to see this issue as a Republican unwillingness to play by the rules ? conservatives exploiting a loophole, as it were. Unfortunately (or perhaps, fortunately) for Democracy, most people have no clue what the hell is going on. A 10-minute inquiry into soft money contributions at opensecrets.com reveals that Democrats, yes, those self-righteous do-gooders who feed the hungry and help grandmothers cross busy streets, have 54 percent of their total campaign funding labeled under the grotesque "soft money" label. What of the Republicans, you ask? Surely those money grubbing, racist fascists must have 75-80 percent of their funding arrive through soft money channels, right? Hardly. Only 43 percent of the Republican Party's general coffer relies on soft money, making the Democrats 11 percent more reliant on soft money than their villainous counterparts.

What's the deal, you ask? Why has this become such an issue as of late? Well, let's take a look at what has happened in the last year. Sept. 11 was certainly a nationwide, if not a worldwide, tragedy that tested the framework of our nation and forced people from every political persuasion to come together for a common good. For a time after the terrorist acts, there were no Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals ? just a nation of concerned individuals. While there is still a solemn sense in the air that will prevail for years to come, politicians are realizing that the fall elections of 2002 will effectively determine the leadership of Congress for, at the very least, two years ? and most likely much longer. With such stakes on the line, and the President's approval rating climbing to new heights daily, the Democrats needed something to steal the spotlight; something that will make the American people remember why they hate Republicans in the first place. They needed an issue as far away politically from the war efforts in Afghanistan as possible. Campaign Finance Reform may as well be from Pluto ? or even Arizona.

So, in short, it seems that the Democrats are biting off their collective nose to save some political face. Will campaign finance reform hurt the Democratic war chests? Certainly. I guess only time will tell if the financial sacrifice made by the liberals under the guise of taking "the high road" (what's new?) will pay off in the fall with a strong election performance, or will lead to a dejected party teetering near bankruptcy, standing in the very same soup kitchen lines they helped fund.