The Democrats' Dilemma

As the Senate opened its debate on campaign finance reform on Monday, Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said "Every Democrat in the Caucus has said on one occasion or another that they're for banning soft money, that they're for the McCain-Feingold bill."

But despite what Senate Democrats have said in the past, cracks are appearing in their support for the campaign finance bill sponsored by Feingold and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

This is the sixth time since 1995 that McCain and Feingold have brought campaign finance legislation to the Senate floor – each time with ardent support from Democrats. But now, when the bill appears to have its best chance of winning approval, some Democrats are less enthusiastic about the proposed reforms, with one longtime backer even separating himself altogether.

Back in 1998, Sen. John Breaux, D-La., said, "If we can get rid of soft money to political parties, that would be a major accomplishment."

But last week, Breaux reversed himself, stating he can't support McCain-Feingold this time around because he feels the bill's ban on soft, or unregulated, political donations would hurt the Democrats.

"Any reform has to create a level playing field," he said. "You have to look at the practical effects, not just the theoretical effects."

Breaux’s supporting a rival reform bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. Hagel's legislation limits soft money, but doesn’t eliminate it, and proposes an increase in individual contribution limits.

Breaux hinted there are other Democrats who are worried about the soft money ban as well - and with good reason.

In the 1999-2000 campaign cycle, both the Democratic and Republican parties raised around $244 million each in soft money. But banning that money would have a larger impact on the Democrats than the GOP.

Over the past several fund-raising cycles, the Democrats have not been able to raise as much money through hard, or regulated, contributions. In 1999-2000, that $244 million in Democratic soft money accounted for 47 percent of their total money raised; the Republican's $244 million amounted to just 35 percent of their total.

And, added Breaux spokeswoman Bette Phelan, "All Democrats are aware of that inequality."

In the past, Democrats have had trouble competing with the GOP in both the hard and soft money departments. But now that they've drawn even in the soft money column, uneasiness with a reform bill that bans soft money has set in.

Democratic strategist Harrison Hickman told CBSNews.com that in the last cycle, "the Democrats have benefitted from soft money" donatins, and because of that, some Democrats have "legitimate concerns" with Mcain-Feingold.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle worries that it will be tough to keep the Democrats unified as more and more amendments get tacked onto the bill.

"We would be supportive in the final passage of the McCain-Feingold bill as it was introduced," Daschle, D-S.D., said Tuesday. "Now I think it's beginning to change in its character, and with each change I think you lessen the opportunity for us to keep Democrats together and in support of a bill that they no longer can identify as McCain-Feingold."

Feingold understands why his fellow Democrats are concerned. "Look, every politician, when you take $500 million out of the system, is going to at least blink," he said Monday. "You wonder what is going to happen to you."

Democrats are being pulled in another direction by the unions, especially the AFL-CIO. They're worried about the provisions limiting coordination between special interest groups and candidates, as well as the restrictions on so-called "issue ads."

On CBS’ Face the Nation, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney explained, "We’re not out to kill it, but we are interested in fixing it."

While the unions may be expressing concern, McCain adviser Howard Opinsky says they may not have much of an effect on how Democrats vote.

Opinsky downplays the unions’ sway on the Democrats, pointing out that other powerful Democratic interests such as "environmental groups and Hollywood are emphatically standing by the bill."

At the end of the day, however, both Opinsky and Feingold remain optimistic. They feel most Democrats will stick with the bill because senators are most worried about how a switch would look to their constituents.

"In the end," said Feingold, "to have voted ... five or six times for banning party soft money and then reversing would be an awfully hard vote for a Democratic senator to explain back home."

(c) MMI Viacom Internet Services Inc. All Rights Reserved