Shays-Meehan bill unnecessary

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives will take another shot at campaign finance reform Tuesday. At issue will be legislation introduced by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) that calls for a ban on soft money donations from corporations, unions and other wealthy would-be campaign contributors. Although supporters of the bill claim that it will reduce the influence of money in politics, the Shays-Meehan legislation promises to be as ineffectual as it is unnecessary.\nDespite what you may have heard on C-SPAN or read in the newspapers, there is a fundamental problem with the concept of campaign finance reform. It rests on the false premise that the little guy has been silenced by wealthy special interests in Washington. While that seems reasonable on its face, it fails to hold up under scrutiny. But that hasn't stopped the bill's supporters from reaching out in desperation for just about anything to justify their favorite pet project.\nThe recent financial collapse of energy giant Enron is no exception. Over the course of the last few weeks, it has become a favorite cause célèbre among activists eager to use it to make their case. But Enron's duplicity isn't evidence of the necessity of campaign finance reform. It is an indication that bad people don't care much for rules.\nThe practice of making off-balance sheet transactions to hide debt and artificially inflate stock prices is illegal. It always has been. Money in politics didn't cause Enron to go bankrupt; unethical and illegal business practices did. No amount of campaign finance reform will ever be enough to make the Ken Lays of the world honest.\nThe influence that corporations like Enron may have exercised in the drafting of the Bush Administration's current energy policy has also been cited as evidence that politicians are controlled by special interest groups. But the fact that business people and a Republican White House happen to agree on an energy policy that is skewed heavily toward market forces and the private sector is hardly evidence of a quid pro quo.\nThat they were involved in the drafting of the proposal at all seems only to indicate that the Bush Administration sought advice on the subject from experts who shared its conservative political philosophy.\nOf course, adherents to the doctrine of campaign finance reform might still say that the influence of other powerful lobbying organizations with big bank accounts such as the NRA or the ACLU is undeniable. On this point, they are correct. But the strength of these organizations doesn't come from money; it comes from the members that finance their activities with membership fees and back them up at the polls in November. It is a testament to the strength of our democracy, not its failure, that politicians are so responsive to them in the first place. \nThe fact that advocates of Shays-Meehan have made it this far is itself evidence that democracy is alive and well. The disillusioned 20-somethings that almost put John McCain, the movement's most outspoken leader, into the White House in 2000 have flexed their muscle, and Washington is listening. Unfortunately, most of them are too busy railing against wealthy special interests to recognize their success. After all, their votes, not their money, are what have made campaign finance reform an issue at all.