At long last, campaign finance reform is getting serious attention on Capitol Hill.
Now that the cost of making a successful run for the White House has proven to be cost-prohibitive, with full campaign costs now being measured in billions of dollars, for anybody but two candidates.
Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John McCain, R-Ariz., are spearheading a bill that would completely eliminate “soft money” aid, which is funding given to political parties.
Most of the time that money is siphoned directly to candidates, so it is, in essence, a direct campaign contribution made without having to comply with any of the individual-contributor rules put in place after Watergate.
The elimination of soft money would make it significantly harder for corporations and other organizations with a vast supply of money to bankroll the election of any one candidate.
Not surprisingly, the elimination of soft money has its opponents.
These soft-money supporters claim that the elimination of this form of contribution would be a violation of First Amendment free speech rights. Apparently, these legislators are taking the cliche “money talks” a little too seriously.
The assertion that throwing wads of money around constitutes speech is absurd.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb, was Exhibit A of soft money supporters until his proposal to do away with only a portion of soft money was killed by the Senate.
Now, the challenge to meaningful campaign finance reform comes from a longtime supporter of the bill, our very own Tennessee Republican, Sen. Fred Thompson.
Thompson still supports the eradication of soft money, but now the senator is seeking an increase in the cap on “hard money,” or how much an individual can contribute to a campaign, from $1,000 to $2,500.
Thompson’s rationale is that since the $1,000 figure was put into place over a quarter-century ago, the number should now be adjusted for inflation. He is, instead, completely missing the point.
In a true democracy, elections must be completely separate from the interests of money.

Author