Campaign reform in court.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Big guns on both sides of the landmark campaign reform bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in March showed up in federal court last week to exchange volleys. The matter will ultimately be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the basic arguments were laid out before a three-judge federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C. If logic and past decisions by the courts and Congress prevail, the law will be upheld. It should be.

The new law, which took effect the day after the November election, is intended to curb the steadily growing and corruptive influence of big money in modern political campaigns. Known as the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate and as the Shays-Meehan bill in the House, the legislation seeks to bring into the open certain campaign contributions that have heretofore been underregulated and underreported. And it seeks to force underwriters of virtually anonymous "issue ads" to play by the same rules by which federal candidates must abide.

The two most important provisions were the most debated at last week's court hearing.

One ends the so-called "soft money" campaign donations by corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. Such donations were supposed to go to political parties for such activities as get-out-the-vote drives, but much of the money has instead ended up in campaigns, which existing law prohibits. Contrary to arguments used by the law's opponents, banning soft money does not infringe on free speech. The ban simply requires everyone to play by the same rules. Bans or limits on contributions in federal elections have been upheld time and again by the courts, and it is to be hoped that the ban on soft money will also be upheld.

The other key provision restricts issue ads - political commercials that are said to be about issues, but in fact and in practice are thinly disguised ads for or against specific candidates. Contrary to opponents' arguments that this provision violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, the provision still allows issue ads. But the law requires that they be financed out of political action committee funds - not out of union or corporate treasury funds - and that they be placed under the same spending and reporting restrictions and requirements that apply to other types of federal campaign spending.

American politics has been inundated with money, and it is no secret that those who give money are listened to - and heeded - far more than those who don't. That undermines the political and electoral processes, which should be about debating issues and ideas, not about raising and spending money. Money will no doubt always play a role in elections, but its sources and destinations need to be made public. That's what the reform legislation seeks to do, and it's why the courts should endorse that goal by upholding the bill.