There are few areas of political reform where change is more desirable and action can clearly make more of a difference than in the area of campaign finance. And, there are few areas where both parties, overcoming their inflexibility, should be able to come to a common understanding of how to reform the system for the better.

While total reform has remained unachievable, there is general agreement on the major defects of the system. First of all, campaigns have become outrageously expensive. As a result, politicians have become obsessed with money. Without money, challengers cannot run effectively and incumbents cannot be assured of keeping their seats. Today's politicians spend enormous amounts of time raising money for campaigns and plotting ways to raise money. This time would be better spent tending to constituents' needs or working on public policy. Secondly, general interests and political-action committees (PACs) have gained an astounding amount of influence. The general public is particularly sensitive about this issue; people feel that they have been slowly squeezed out by moneyed interests and no longer have access to their representatives in Congress.

On the flip side, all the talk about campaign finance reform is malarkey (Fortune 147). One explanation is that the goal of making everyone financially equal in the legislation process sounds good, but is actually impractical. Certain individuals and interest groups will always have more money, and thus more advantages, than others. Further more, money is needed to win elections. Enacting bills restraining and binding resources for funding, would put a tighter clench on campaign spending, forcing candidates to turn to corrupt practices for revenue. Lastly, campaign finance reform has also been labeled as "undemocratic" because it impedes on the individuals right to free speech, limiting where they can spend their personal moneys.

Various proposals reducing campaign spending and the frenzy in its collection have surfaced, however, the following few would make a greater difference than the others. First, a tax-credit for small, in-state contributions should be enacted. The best kind of money is small contributions from individual citizens from a candidates' state. The average party supporter donates two hundred dollars or less per contribution (Alexander 55), so a one hundred percent tax credit to those supporters would be a great incentive for citizens to contribute to a campaign. This would also allow them to become more involved in the democratic process.

Attached to the tax credit should be a matching fund process set up by in-state contributions. This would influence candidates to raise "good", "pure" money. A limit would be set at any amount, for example thirty-five thousand dollars, to keep only the serious candidates in the election. Once the limit is passed, candidates would receive matched funds from the government for any contributions of the sort.

With these two reforms in place, candidates would have a large movement to raise money in small contributions from their own state's voters. This would start a trend of bringing the citizens closer to their Congressional leaders and away from PACs and general interest groups.

Reducing PAC contributions to individual campaigns would not eliminate PAC influence altogether. There is no doubt that many interests would try to find other ways to enhance their presence in politics either through the soft money or group contributions from different sources. But enhanced exposure would help deter that practice, as would a strong enforcement agency for the weak Federal Election Committee (FEC). For a change in practices, procedure would have to change immediately because PACs aren't becoming extinct. In fact they are expanding rapidly. From the mid-1970's to the mid-1980's, the number of PACs registered with the FEC grew from six-hundred-eight to more than four thousand. The level of PAC contributions to House and Senate candidates grew from twelve-and-half million in 1974 to one-hundred-seventy-eight million in 1992 (Congressional Digest 128). More importantly keeping PACs alive but reducing their influence would keep most interest into observable and legitimate routes with much less clutter and confusion.

Interest groups, as well as certain individuals, will always have more money, and more advantages, than others. Even some of the country's leading campaign finance crusaders say so. "The inequalities of the system aren't going to be changed by legislation," concedes Kent Cooper, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. Adds Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity: "You'll never eliminate the inordinate importance and presence of wealth in the political system (Fortune 147)." Money in politics will always level off at some point. There is too much invested in moneyed interests for them not to find some way into politics. A quick review of history will display this. In 1907, direct corporate contributions were banned, and direct donations from labor unions were prohibited in 1947 (Drew 208). However, thanks to the introduction of "soft money", both groups now funnel millions of dollars into so called "party building".

The sad, but true, reality of campaign finance is that they need more money, not less, to conduct an effective campaign. Today's society is so vast and spread out all over the nation in many geographical locations that voters lie in all regions circumventing the United States. Candidates need to raise a lot money to run effective campaigns that adequately reach voters. A political campaign is a crucial form in a democracy for raising issues, debating differences, and showcasing problems of government and money is needed to support those items. Candidates need to be able to reach voters in all aspects of multimedia and entertainment to be sure they get the full expose possible. These include, endless numbers of cable channels, newspaper, radio, and other periodicals, direct mail, and even on the world wide web. If campaign reform was brought to all elections, decreasing the amount of financial income candidates have to campaign, they would have to reach for illegal and corrupt practices to win over voters.

In the ruling of Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court ruled, "Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution." The Constitutional dilemma is rooted in a case of Catch-22: while Congress had the responsibility to protect free speech, it also has the obligation to protect the integrity of the electoral system (Congressional Quarterly 431). "Individuals, political action committees and corporations should be free to spend as much money as they wish to influence the outcome of an election," argues Joel Gora of the New York Civil Liberties Union. However, Congress cannot curb spending by candidates or groups without changing the First Amendment. And, if Congress were to change the Constitution for campaign finance, where would it end?

To predict the future and probable outcome of campaign finance reform is a task of high difficulty. Congress, interest groups , PACs and the Supreme Court have been chasing reform around in a circle for endless years. Reform depends totally on the majority party of Congress and whether or not there is a split government. If the democrats stay in control through the next election, for sure, campaign finance will become well in touch with reform polices. However, if the Republican party is to gain control of the House and Presidency in the next election any current or further enacted polices may be overturned. Campaign finance reform is a debate that will only be settled once clear direction is established by all parties involved.

To this date, finance reform has remained driven in circles. Many people agree that there are defects with the system, but are not sure as to what to do about them. Money is need to run elections, but how can it be controlled democratically? How can politicians still have time to raise money and direct fundraisers without neglecting their districts and voters? Is there any possible way to limit PACs without drying them and their purpose up? And, finally, should all candidates be equal in financial amounts? Until these questions are answered indefinitely, campaign finance reform will continue to burn up time and money. As stated by Robert J. Samuelson of Newsweek magazine, "The best defense against the undue influence of money is to let candidates raise it from as many sources as possible- and to let the public see who's giving. That would be genuine reform."

Works Cited

Author not listed. "Campaign-Finance Reform Won't Work" Fortune 8 December 1997:147

Alexander, Herbert. Campaign Money C. 1976 The Free Press, New York, N.Y.

Alexander, Herbert. Financing Politics C. 1984 Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Carr, Rebecca. "Overhaul Bills Head to a Vote, But Obstacles Remain" Congressional Quarterly 27 September 1997:2279-2284

Donovan, Beth. "Constitutional Issues Frame Congressional Options" Congressional Quarterly 27 February 1993:431-437

Drew, Elizabeth. Politics and Money C. 1983 MacMillian Publishing Group, New York, N.Y.

House Administration Committee Report 103-375 on H.R. 3, the House of Representatives Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act. "Background and Rationale" Congressional Digest April 1994:104; 128

Jenkins Jr., Kent. "Beware of 'real reform' " U.S. News & World Report 17 March 1997:34

Ornstein, Norman. "Money in Politics: Campaign Finance Reform" Current October 1992:10-14

Radelot, Ana. "How will Capitol Hill react to public demand for reform?" Public Citizen May/ June 1990:1-16

Samuelson, Robert J. "Making Pols Into Crooks" Newsweek 6 October 1997: 53

Smith, Bradley A. "Campaign Finance Reform: Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences" USA Today January 1998:10-13

Thayer, George. Who Shakes the Money Tree? C. 1973 American Book-Stratford Press, Inc., New York, N.Y.

Wall, James M. "Taking Liberties" Christian Century 5 March 1997