As I've mentioned here from time to time, my political views are all over the map — liberal on some matters, conservative on others — and I don't really trust anyone who is exclusively one or the other about everything. On the current matter of Campaign Finance Reform, I find myself siding with both factions: I think something needs to be done about the influence of cash in our political process, but I think the recently-passed Campaign Finance Reform bill is a mis-step and probably an unconstitutional one, at that. Just scanning the articles, one sees too much talk of "loopholes" to believe it will really change anything…and in the process, we've increased government limitations on your right to donate to the candidate or cause of your choice. I cannot reconcile that with my understanding of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, though I might side with the Republicans who opposed the bill and who are still vowing to castrate it, I am unimpressed with their motives. Continuing with our theme here of citing "politics over principles," I am unconvinced that anyone who's arguing for or against the bill is thinking much past whatever position looks to help them in the next few elections. I am also unimpressed — as is nearly everyone — with our president's political cowardice. He thinks the bill is wrong and is clearly counting on the Supreme Court to nuke it…but, even with a 75-80% approval rating — he isn't about to take the heat that would come with a veto.
It seems to me that true Campaign Finance Reform will have more to do with fuller disclosure — and making prosecution for influence-peddling and compliance easier — than with limiting donations. It will also have to involve the public rising up against elected officials who take megabucks from the Acme Company and then turn around and govern on behalf of the Acme Board of Directors. We don't get nearly mad enough about this kind of thing — or, if we do, it doesn't translate to a downside for either the givers or takers. Some of the latter might lose their offices (or freedom) because of Enron…but that will be because they're perceived as accomplices in a swindle of that corporation's investors and employees. The politicians who took Enron loot will not likely be hurt just because they took it and then "paid back" the donor. What I'd love to see in the next election is for a lot of candidates to be defeated — Democratic or Republican, but preferably some of each — and for the obvious reason to be that they took those kinds of indirect bribes. Once it's established that avoiding quid pro quos helps get a guy elected, we'll see real election reform.