By Corwin D. Smidt

Staff Writer

So campaign finance reform is finally here. A version of the bill has passed in both houses of Congress and President Bush has announced his willingness to the sign the bill into law. At last, our elections have been freed from the hands of large corporations and corruptive special interests! At least that is what John McCain wants you to think, but is he all that he is cracked up to be? Was this entire hubbub over soft and hard money worth what was produced in the end?

This may be a disappointment to any hardcore CFRers or Russ Feingold groupies (what a stud!), but anyone believing that our campaigns will now become cleaner and fairer should take a closer look. In theory, this bill would stop rich individuals from influencing public policy or well-funded politicians from trouncing poorer challengers. But in practice the effects of campaign finance reform seem less like a positive step toward reform and more like a further mutation of a system already complex and crazy.

Let's first take a look at what campaign finance reform actually does. Here are the major items in the bill, which is slated to come into effect the day after this year's election:

· National party committees cannot use soft money. Contributions to state party committees are limited to $10,000 and must be for get-out-the-vote and registration efforts.

· Individual contributions are limited to $1000 for House candidates, $2000 for Senate and presidential candidates and $30,000 for parties. These limits would be indexed to inflation.

· Contribution limits would be raised for candidates who faced millionaire opponents.

· Special interest ``issue ads'' that mention a federal candidate cannot be aired within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election if not paid for with hard money contributions.

This legislation was passed in the name of eradicating six-figure checks from large corporations and special interest groups, and in some ways it has succeeded. There will be a decrease in the influence of Political Action Committees (PACs), which were created by wealthy private individuals or industry groups and were capable of giving large sums of money to campaigns. Yet there remain many incorrect assumptions of this bill that need to be clarified.

First of all, political campaigns, and consequently politicians, will not have less influence from wealthy individuals and rich organizations. If anything, campaign finance reform increases the importance of the rich in funding political campaigns. With politicians less able to receive third party action groups and corporations for money, they will increasingly become more reliant on wealthy donors who can afford the maximum contribution.

For example, George W. Bush was the undisputed king of hard money. He created a network of more than 200 supporters who raised more than $100,000 each in $1000 dollar contributions from friends and associates. This group includes corporate CEOs and heads of law firms, places where a large tight network of wealthy individuals exist. Campaigns probably will resort more and more to this tactic, and in turn, heavily value these individuals. In fact, it was this sort of practice that enabled Bush to reject federal funding of his presidential campaign and the spending limits that come with it. Basically, placing limits on contributions does not decrease their value; it does the opposite and increases the importance of raising money in campaigns. The law of supply and demand wins again.

Secondly, by enacting such laws campaigns will not be fairer. Contribution limits will not make it easier for small time candidates to challenge incumbents. Incumbents with well-established connections will have it easier in raising campaign funds. Having been in office and having won before, they are well-equipped for raising funds and running a campaign. Challengers once were able to receive large amounts of money from interests that supported their views, or they benefited from television ads that exposed an incumbent's record. These tactics, while dirty, enabled them to fight on equal grounds with their competitors. If you don't think these representatives thought about their elections, then notice the provision that lifted contribution limits for candidates who faced wealthy individuals. With many funding options no longer available, it appears that incumbents will have less pressure from opponents. Consequently, elections will be less responsive to the people's needs and more responsive to those who have money.

Another problem with this bill is its conflicts with the first amendment. The ACLU and other groups are already claiming this bill limits free speech Their objections are correct. To say anything freely in America requires a lot of money. If the courts reject any of these provisions on the grounds that limiting one's spending limits their freedom of speech, then the possibility is low that the rest of the provisions will adequately stop the influence of soft money.

Our elections have come to represent one of the ugly realities of our current political system. These ugly realities increasingly make us view our government and politicians in a cynical light, but trying to change our finance regulations is not the answer. True campaign finance reform is reforming the electoral system and not its effects. This option is incredibly more difficult, but money plays such an important role in our campaigns because our electoral system is designed that way. Shortening our campaigns or creating a different process by which our candidates run for office would be more effective at reducing the influence of money. However, it is doubtful that any of these options will occur since it will involve unsettling changes for incumbent legislators.

Campaign finance reform has passed and it will apparently become a reality. We can only hope our country will avoid its harmful consequences and manage to realize that it is in reforming our electoral system where real democratic progress can be made.