Tribune columnist R. Bruce Dold seriously under-estimates the impact of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation (Op-Ed, Aug. 29).
McCain-Feingold has two main provisions. One is a ban on “soft money,” the unlimited and unregulated contributions that have flooded our political system, triggered congressional investigations and undermined the faith of the American people in their own system. The other is a provision offering incentives to encourage candidates to reduce their campaign spending–and including a requirement that candidates raise 60 percent of their overall funds from individuals in their home states.
These provisions would reduce the influence of money on the process, reduce the costs of campaigns, level the playing field for challengers and return the candidates’ main focus to constituents, rather than big contributors.
The watchdog group Public Citizen analyzed the impact of our bill and found that if the soft-money ban and the spending/fundraising/benefits provisions of McCain-Feingold and its companion House legislation had been in effect during the 1992, 1994 and 1996 election cycles, House and Senate candidates would have spent about $496 million less, and $449 million of soft-money spending by the political parties would have been eliminated. That’s nearly $1 billion in reduced spending.
The bill also includes strong provisions requiring independent organizations engaging in campaign-related activities to disclose their spending and abide by the restrictions of federal election campaign law.
McCain-Feingold may not fix every problem with the current system, but it is a significant step forward in reducing the influence of money on our elections and our public policymaking process. That is genuine reform.
