March 17, 2001

              By JOEL M. GORA AND PETER J. WALLISON

                  Now that Democrats have pulled even with Republicans in raising soft money,
                  some of them have begun to go soft on the McCain-Feingold campaign
              finance bill, which would ban such contributions. The legislation is scheduled to be
              debated in the Senate next week.

              Despite all the noise, soft money is not the monster it's made out to be. By definition,
              it consists solely of contributions to political parties for such things as party building,
              getting out the vote and issue advertising; it cannot be used for direct support of
              candidates.

              Campaign finance reformers argue that soft money must be eliminated to reduce the
              undue influence of wealthy contributors, businesses and other groups. We don't
              deny that a private contribution system may pose the risk of excessive influence by
              large contributors, especially when these contributions go directly to candidates. But
              eliminating soft money contributions to parties sacrifices other values that we believe
              are fundamental to our democratic system.

              Our political system has spawned single-issue organizations like the National
              Abortion Rights Action League and the National Rifle Association, industry groups
              like the American Petroleum Institute and labor groups like the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
              Contributions to these groups are not limited and are used to maintain their
              organizations, motivate their followers and publicize their principles and positions on
              public issues.

              Political parties are groups with broader interests, more intertwined with the
              electoral process. The "soft money" they receive helps them maintain their
              organizations, motivate their followers and publicize their principles. Banning soft
              money denies parties the rights that we would not think of denying to other
              organizations.

              If you don't think there's anything wrong with this, consider: The National Abortion
              Rights Action League can attack the Republican Party with money it raises from any
              source and in any amount; the National Rifle Association can attack the Democratic
              party with the same unlimited resources; however, if soft money is eliminated, neither
              political party will have the resources to counter these attacks. Does this make
              sense?

              Reducing the influence of the wealthy or of so-called special interests is not the only
              value we cherish. There is also the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment.
              Can there be any doubt that the core of the Constitution's protection of free speech
              and a free press is to inform the electorate?

              Yet the arguments of reformers seem to ignore this point, which was made by the
              Supreme Court in its historic 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision on campaign finance:
              "Being free to engage in unlimited political expression subject to a ceiling on
              expenditures is like being free to drive an automobile as far and as often as one
              desires on a single tank of gas."

              The McCain-Feingold bill goes beyond even limiting contributions. It actually
              prohibits speech. Specifically, it bans radio or television commercials by unions and
              corporations, and by groups that they support, if the ads name a candidate in the
              two months before a general election. Thus, the bill would limit the free expression
              of these groups.

              There are no real winners in this situation, but there are real losers — the voting
              public. Voters would be deprived of information they would have received from the
              parties and from the independent groups that want to have a say in the electoral
              decision. And to what end? All because we are afraid that contributors to political
              parties might have some kind of indirect undue influence over the candidates.

              It's time to bring a little common sense to the campaign finance debate. Yes, private
              contributions to parties may result in some indirect influence, but this can be
              addressed by requiring adequate and immediate disclosure of large contributors. To
              focus on the problem of undue influence to the exclusion of all other issues is to miss
              the forest for the trees. We have a Constitution and a guarantee of free speech for a
              reason. We should keep that reason at the top of any reform agenda.

              Joel M. Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is general counsel to the
              New York Civil Liberties Union. Peter J. Wallison, a fellow at the American
              Enterprise Institute, is a former counsel to President Ronald Reagan.