The Shell-Shocked Congress

In her latest Political Points commentary, CBS News Senior Political Editor Dotty Lynch takes a look at the debate over campaign finance reform.

"This is a stunningly stupid thing to do," said the Republican senator from Kentucky. This bill (McCain-Feingold) is going to pass … and if I were a betting man, I'd bet it gets signed into law."

He then proceeded to demonstrate the "stupidity" of the bill with charts showing just how much money both political parties would lose if "soft money" were banned – as if those who just voted couldn't possibly have been aware of this crucial fact.

On the Democratic side, a labor union operative threw up his hands. "This is a mess, but hopefully unconstitutional," he said.

When asked why Democratic senators would support something that is so clearly against their self-interest, he moaned, "They think they know this issue. They won't pay attention to their political consultants because they think they are tainted and they think they know more than their aides."

He assumed they couldn't possibly have read the bill or thought through its implications.

Even the reformers were a bit stunned by the vote Thursday to defeat an amendment on "non-severability," which would have made the main sections of the campaign reform bill unconstitutional if the Supreme Court struck down any part of it. The vote cleared the way for the passage of the entire bill next week.

For the past few days, reformers have been warning of cynical moves by senators to vote for unconstitutional amendments as a way of looking like they wanted reform but really trying to block it.

But the bill is still not home free. The reformers are starting the same process in the House, targeting the obvious enemies (read Tom Delay) while also shining light on the closet enemies (read liberal Democrats) who have been advocating reform but are terrified of the consequences.

In some ways, Democrats are right to fear the consequences. One generally reform-minded elected official who is looking hard at a Senate race in 2002 predicted this could "kill the Democratic chances for regaining the Senate."

Pointing to the hard money advantage of the Republicans and the probable unconstitutionality of banning issue advocacy ads, many Democrats see the lack of soft money as crippling their ability to "fight back" against an onslaught of negative ads in the final week of a campaign.

Sen. Bob Torrecelli of New Jersey, who headed the Democratic Senate campaign committee in 2000 when it raised a record $63 million in soft money, gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor begging his colleagues not to pass a bill that might prevent Democrats from running slews of negative ads in the future.

Democratic Party chai Terry McAullife, himself no stranger to soft money, was sanguine about life after McCain-Feingold. On his way to a fund-raiser on Thursday night to pick up some pretty big money ($3 million in chunks of $5,000; all of which would be OK under McCain-Feingold), he announced that the Democrats had raised a record $8 million via small-donor direct mail the first quarter of 2001; mainly on the issues of the Florida recount and the environment.

Direct mail and Internet giving is clearly more consistent with Democratic issues and claims to be "for the little guy" than raking in millions from rich businessmen and entertainers. McAuliffe says he will expand this program to make up for a shortfall in soft money if McCain-Feingold is enacted.

While there is still a measure of skepticism that the Congress will actually pass a bill that appears to be against its own self-interest, something close to nobility seems to be going on in Washington. A majority of senators this week voted to do something "stunningly stupid." If McConnell's bet is right, the senators should be rewarded for their stupidity. And, if George W. Bush does indeed sign the bill, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to change the culture of Washington.

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