After an abrupt end to the competitive primary season, the two candidates who have received their parties' nominations--Vice President Al Gore '69 and Texas Gov. George W. Bush--have made long-overdue pledges to make campaign finance reform significant parts of their platforms. To some extent, the moves were political maneuvers to win over independents who supported Arizona Sen. John S. McCain and former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley. Nevertheless, we are heartened that although the presidential bids of McCain and Bradley have ended, the spectre of reform will haunt the candidates as they move towards the general election.

Granted, hearing Gore and Bush talk about campaign finance is a bit like hearing Microsoft extol the virtues of antitrust law. Gore's campaign has been hounded by a Justice Department investigation for 1996 fundraising practices. Recently, Maria Hsia, a Democratic fund-raiser, was indicted for her role in the now-infamous Buddhist Temple incident. Meanwhile, Bush's campaign gained notoriety for the millions it raised from wealthy donors. Bush's recent campaign finance proposal would allow still candidates to fundraise from these very same donors, and Bush's large tax breaks for higher-income Americans would ensure that these donors don't hesitate. Moreover, both Democrats and Republicans have benefited from enormous inflows of "soft money," contributions to political parties that are currently unregulated by federal election laws.

But these facts do not preclude the possibility of reform. Gore has openly apologized for his past actions, and has even offered to limit soft money donations if his opponent will. Such bilateral actions are necessary because it would be unreasonable to expect either candidate to take a self-imposed handicap in the general election. We urge Bush to act on Gore's offer, particularly because Bush's financial might puts the Texas governor in a unique position to initiate reform. If the self-described "reformer with results" is to make good on his claim, he will need to be the first to limit his own soft money contributions.

Neither of the candidates seem naturally inclined towards reform. But we hope that the spirit of reform, like Banquo's ghost, will hound them throughout the campaign. Such pressure will serve Americans well by ensuring that the fight to get special interests out of politics will not end with the losses of McCain and Bradley.