Campaign Finance: Debating For Dollars

(2 of 2)

Equally sobering is the fact that reform efforts inevitably have unintended consequences: the next generation of abuse and scandal. Soft money didn't exist until the 1980s, when political parties figured out a way to exploit loopholes in the last reform that Congress passed, opening the way for donors to give hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time under the guise of "party building." Even McCain acknowledges his bill would be at best a temporary fix, one that would work only until politicians and interest groups figure a way around it.

And that's if it passes. Last week's goodwill may have been a false spring. This week the bill faces far tougher votes, any one of which could be fatal. "With each change, I think you lessen the opportunity for us to keep Democrats together and in support of a bill that they can no longer identify as McCain-Feingold," Daschle warned early in the debate. Three days later he added, "There are some bright warning signs, some blinking yellow lights about the direction that we are going."

The fate of the measure seems to be riding on whether and by how much to raise the hard-money limits. Hagel, whose alternative bill limiting but not banning soft money has the quiet support of the White House, told TIME he is ready to offer his measure if no deal emerges. Another battle looms over the bill's provision barring unions, corporations and interest groups from running "issue ads" for or against candidates close to Election Day. Opponents of the bill are also expected to try to plant a time bomb called "non-severability," which ensures that if any part of the bill is struck down in court (the issue-ads provision is a likely candidate for rejection on constitutional grounds), the entire bill would fall. Non-severability, says McCain, "is French for 'kill campaign finance reform.'" But proponents of it may find support among Democrats, who fear that if courts start slicing off parts of the bill, they could find themselves facing a barrage of attack ads without the soft money to fight back. "We haven't really got to the hard parts yet. You can lose a senator like that," Hagel says, snapping his fingers.

Even if the bill passes the Senate, its future is far from assured. The House approved a similar measure in the last Congress, when it was certain the Senate would kill it. Would it do the same if it means sending a bill to Bush's desk? And if the two houses have to reconcile their versions, whom would Lott appoint to the conference committee? If he sent McCain and his nemesis McConnell, the fight would just continue in a different theater.

President Bush, whose father's veto pen stopped the last campaign finance reform to make it through Congress, is lying low on the issue. In a meeting with House leaders on Thursday, Bush told them, in essence, "I'm not going to be your backstop," according to a participant. The President doesn't want to have to veto. In fact, White House officials were making noises about compromise. And for the record, Bush asserted Friday, "I look forward to a bill and am confident they will be able to come up with a bill that I can sign."

It's smart politics for Bush to make sure that should the bill die on Capitol Hill, he has no fingerprints on the murder weapon. He also puts more pressure on lawmakers to do the deed themselves — which means the time for hugs and flowers may have passed. It's back to business as usual in the Senate.