McCain-Feingold Won't Solve Campaign Finance Problems

To the editors:

Re: Vasant M. Kamath's "Putting a Cap on Campaign Finance" (Op-ed, April 13).

First, the article's title is fallacious. None of the outstanding legislation, McCain-Feingold, Shays-Meehan or otherwise, puts a "cap" on campaign finance. For independently wealthy candidates or prodigal fundraisers with name-recognition, the sky will remain the limit. If all legislation does is limit contributions and make it difficult for less wealthy and less well-known individuals to raise funds, are we setting ourselves up for a plutocracy or, even worse to some, perpetual incumbency?

Kamath mentions in the article that the campaign finance legislation died in subcommittee. Not true. The Shays-Meehan bill actually passed in the House by a hefty margin (close to 100 votes, if I remember correctly), but the Senate's concomitant legislation couldn't muster the 60 votes to beat a filibuster, although it did have a majority. Campaign finance is not an "underdog issue," and in the upcoming legislative year it will have even more support and probably will pass.

Third, it is quite ironic that the article urges the "moderate" Speaker Hastert to try his "darndest" to pass the legislation. The implication, of course, is that he himself is a proponent of the legislation up against a recalcitrant opposition. In fact, he is one of the most stubborn opponents, and if anyone does manage to kill the legislation, it will probably be Hastert.

Lastly, Kamath, like many politicians, falsely conveys that McCain-Feingold is a campaign finance panacea. What the law would do is eliminate the "soft money" loophole that many candidates use to raise money. But candidates could still spend as much as they want. It's just that if they're not rich or famous, they're going to be spending a lot more time finding the money to spend.

The only real solution to the problem may be a more dynamic and educated populace that chooses to analyze the issues itself. Until we make the political market more egalitarian and until the political currency changes from dollars to discourse, we will continue to have a quasi-democratic system where an involved few drag along, kicking and screaming, an indifferent many.

Wayne Hsiung

Carmel, Ind., April 13, 1999