When I heard that the House was scheduled to debate and vote on campaign finance reform legislation this week, I was elated.  However, my excitement changed to disappointment and anger when I looked at the bill and realized that the so-called "campaign reform" bill would actually increase contribution limits, stifle the voice of working people, and encourage state and local parties to raise and spend soft money.

Under current law, people can donate $1,000 per election to a candidate running for federal office, such as Congress, Senate, or president.  That same individual can donate $20,000 to a political party.  However, no individual can donate more than a total of $25,000 each year.

That seems like a lot of money to me.  I know I couldn't afford to donate $25,000 a year, and none of my friends or family could either.  But the House leadership is trying to convince us that we should increase those limits and allow wealthy individuals to spend more!  Don't forget, Newt Gingrich believes there should be more money in politics, not less, and said he "would emphasize fare more money in the political process."  This bill would make his dream come true.

This legislation would allow people to donate $2,000 per election to a candidate and triple the amount that an individual could donate to a political party from $20,000 to $60,000 each year.  The bill would also triple an individual's aggregate contribution amount from $25,000 each year to $75,000 each year.  The sponsor of this bill, Rep. Bill Thomas, wrote that this would "help middle class candidates compete fairly with millionaires."  My definition of middle class must be very different from his, because I don't think many middle class Americans can afford to give [that].  

I agree with those who say that labor unions should not use a worker's dues for political activities if the worker opposes it, and the law already protects those people.  The United States Supreme Court held that in states where union membership is required, dues money cannot be used to finance legislative or political activities against a member's objection.  These workers already have the power to request their money be withheld, and some do.  This legislation would simply stifle the voice of working people in the political process by imposing on unions costly new bureaucratic federal regulations.

Finally, this "campaign reform" bill says it bans soft money, but in reality it just reroutes it.  Remember Roger Tamraz?  He is a millionaire who wanted to donate huge sums of money to President Clinton’s re-election campaign so that the White House would approve an oil pipeline deal he wanted (ironically, they ended up not approving his deal).  However, election laws limit contributions to $1,000 per election as I mentioned above.

So Mr. Tamraz instead funneled $170,000 to the Democratic party that was used to help the Clinton campaign.  All of this is perfectly legal, but I don't think it should be.  Under this "campaign reform" bill, Mr. Tamraz could no longer donate soft money to the National Democratic Party, but he could give as much as he wants to state parties and local parties.

This bill doesn't ban soft money.  It simply takes it out of the national parties and moves it into hundreds of state and local party organizations.

There are a few good provisions in this bill.  It improves disclosure and requires electronic filing by candidates and political committees.  However, this bill does too much damage to working people and our democratic process for me to support.

The truth is, the House leadership should have an honest debate about campaign finance reform anyway.  Instead, they have written a terrible piece of legislation that increases the power of wealthy contributors, takes the voice of working people out of the political process, and allows the offensive soft money contributions to continue.

Although this is a frustrating process, I urge you not to lose hope yet.  Every year, more and more people are elected to Congress who support reform of the campaign finance system.  We are very close to having a majority and forcing party leadership to clean up our campaign system to regain the trust of the American people.