CHANGING CAMPAIGN RULES TOUGH SELL.

Byline: Adam Clymer The New York Times

For years, scholars have been saying that another scandal comparable to Watergate would get Congress to tighten the campaign finance laws.

Now they are not so sure.

For all the flaws in the system - most dramatically the Clinton presidential campaign's unrestrained pursuit last year of ``soft money,'' the unregulated gifts to political parties from individuals, corporations and unions - many representatives and senators see the same redeeming virtue in leaving the laws alone: This system got them elected.

As one of the supporters of spending limits, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., said, ``Members are not going to change a system that benefits them unless they feel they have no choice.'' Like other would-be reformers, Meehan hopes that Senate hearings in late spring may put heat on Congress.

But no proposal has widespread support. The measure Meehan backs, which would entice candidates into accepting voluntary limits on spending in exchange for free television time and discounted television time and mailings, has Common Cause and many editorial pages behind it, but almost no Republicans, except Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

Their Republican colleagues generally oppose spending limits and want to retain the soft money system, which the bill seeks to ban.

House Democrats have a bill patterned on the voluntary limit measure, but it seeks to preserve the role of political action committees, diminished under the Meehan-Shays bill. This bill, introduced by Rep. Sam Farr, D-Monterey, also retains the practice of ``bundling'' checks, in which a committee solicits many checks for a candidate from individuals and sends them along even though the total exceeds the PAC contribution limit of $5,000. Those provisions matter so much to particular clumps of House Democrats that they are worth blocking any legislation to defend.

Senate Republicans have shown no particular interest in any piece of legislation, but Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said ``a sticking point will be requiring organized labor to operate only with voluntarily contributed money.'' He said: ``I hope that won't be a killer provision for Democrats. It's only elementary fairness.'' Democrats disagree.

That issue is emblematic of the problem in changing campaign laws. Republicans strongly dislike labor's ability to use union dues to buy television advertisements attacking their candidates. But they have survived it, and probably their collective desire to outlaw the practice is weaker than the Democrats' will to resist.

That is true of most of the 57 measures introduced in the first three months of this Congress. Almost every one seems to have at least some provisions that provoke more opposition than support.

It has been 23 years since Congress undertook big change when Watergate led to the adoption of public financing of presidential campaigns, while, at House insistence, rejecting the same for Congress.

So McCain, while conceding that the fight was still an uphill one, said the variety of bills was promising. ``I view it very frankly, as a hopeful sign,'' he said. ``I don't think they would be introducing them if there weren't pressure.''