In a study of more than 3,500 political advertisements aired more than 940,000 times during the 2000 national election the results constitute a conclusive argument FOR reform. Soft-money advocates say that the unregulated cash is about building political parties and their organizations. But the largest single use of soft money -- 37.8 percent -- is for media advertising not related to "building parties". By contrast, only 8.5 percent of soft money went to mobilizing voters. Much of the rest went to administration and fundraising.

Ah, but when the parties advertise, aren't they building support for themselves and the idea of a party system? Nope! "Almost 92 percent of these media party ads never even identified the name of a political party, let alone encouraged voters to register with the party, to volunteer with the local party organization, or to support the party." The report confirmed what everyone who works in political campaigns already knows: The so-called "party" ads are regular political ads in disguise aimed at electing a candidate.

Many opponents of campaign reform take sharp exception to a provision that would limit what is politely called "issue advertising." The ban applies only in the 60 days before an election and only to ads that mention the name of a candidate.

Opponents of reform say the ban on issue advertising would get in the way of legitimate debate on public matters. The Brennan report explodes the foundation of this claim by showing that the overwhelming majority of the ads run by outside groups in the two months before Election Day were designed not to make a case about an issue but to elect or defeat a particular candidate: "Approximately 86 percent of group-sponsored ads aired within 60 days of the 2000 election were electioneering issue ads rather than genuine issue ads." They were another way of undermining the election law.

The one big difference between regular political ads run by candidates and the sham issue ads: The ads by outside groups were far more negative than the ones run by candidates, presumably because candidates can be held to account for what they put on television. Note that almost none of the legitimate issue ads would be banned by the Reform Bill.

If money plays too big a role in the election process, money's influence will begin corrupting the way we govern ourselves. In one decision after another, the Supreme Court has held that because reducing corruption is a legitimate public goal, Congress has a right to regulate political contributions.

But the previous system had subverted these efforts. The reform bill is a modest effort to restore some limits on money's power.
If the Senate had Filibustered or amended this bill it would have DIED and sent only one message: Money rules.