Should Soft Money Be Banned?

Critics say it corrupts politics; defenders call it free speech

[YES]

Campaign finance reform isn't just about money. It's about what gets done on Capitol Hill and what doesn't. Soft money--gifts from special-interest groups that current law doesn't limit because they're not used in direct support of a candidate for office--is gumming up the works.

For example, nearly everyone agrees that Congress should enact prescription-drug coverage for the elderly. But during the past election cycle, the pharmaceutical and health-products industries rained $15.7 million in soft money down on the parties to protect their outrageous profit margins.

We've seen little progress on this issue, and the gridlock isn't limited to health care. Prospects for cleaner air and cleaner waterways are in jeopardy because polluters have purchased outsized clout through outsized soft-money donations. And with more than a little help from its soft-money machine, the National Rifle Association continues to block common-sense measures to protect young people from gun violence.

The bill I have introduced in the House of Representatives with Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) would--like the McCain-Feingold bill that the Senate has passed--put the people's work back on the front burner in Congress by banning these soft-money contributions.

The House should vote yes on our bill. Campaign finance reform is the key to a better America today and tomorrow.

--REP. MARTY MEEHAN (D-Mass.)

[NO]

The essence of free speech is the unfettered right to criticize our government. We force it to change by holding men and women in positions of responsibility accountable.

For average Americans, the only effective way to do this is by joining with like-minded others, pooling their resources and purchasing advertisements to spread their political point of view. Political speech is the avenue our Constitution provides to foster political change.

I oppose McCain-Feingold and similar bills because they place unconstitutional restrictions on this fundamental right.

I also reject the assertion that political contributions are, by their nature, corrupting. I believe that Americans contribute to politicians who share their values and objectives. And as for truly corruptible people, they will betray their offices no matter what regulations are in place.

I support raising the legal limits on contributions and opening the process by instantly disclosing political donors. These reforms are sensible, and they don't restrict political freedom.

But if McCain-Feingold becomes law, it will do three things: It will empower incumbent politicians. It will expand the media's influence over our political system. And it will restrict the ability of average people to take part in the political debate. All three of these outcomes move us away from the representative democracy our Founders envisioned.

--REP. TOM DELAY (R-Tex.)