The U.S. Senate is currently engaged in a lengthy debate on campaign finance reform, with the centerpiece being the McCain-Feingold legislation banning "soft money" contributions to political parties and regulating so-called "independent issue ads" during the late phases of campaigns. Thanks to growing public concern about the power of moneyed interests in American politics, and the determined efforts of its two primary sponsors, prospects for passage of McCain-Feingold are better than ever before.

With the cost of political campaigns rising almost exponentially in recent years, and the dependence of candidates on unlimited "soft money" contributions rising even faster, there's a sense of urgency about this year's debate that may finally overwhelm the opponents of campaign finance reform. No longer does Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (who believes we need more, not less, money in politics) publicly gloat that he can kill any campaign finance reform legislation in the Senate, and even the Bush Administration is casting about for weaker versions of McCain-Feingold to support if necessary. So far, efforts to kill McCain-Feingold with "poison pill" amendments, such as restrictions on union political activity, have fortunately been defeated.

While we hope Congress will act favorably on McCain-Feingold, this legislation is by its very nature a limited reform.

The main problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings treating political spending as "political speech" protected by the First Amendment. That means it will not allow regulation of spending by self-financed candidates, and is also wary of restrictions on non-candidate-directed "advocacy ads" by "independent" groups, even if they are clearly intended to support or oppose particular candidates. Moreover, federal legislation will not affect state rules, so contributors and candidates may find ways to end-run the entire system by channeling money through state parties in the many states with weak campaign finance laws.

Thus, action on McCain-Feingold should be the first, not the last, stage in the debate on campaign finance reform. Given the prevailing constitutional restrictions on measures aimed at limiting many types of political giving and spending, reformers should focus on creating alternatives for candidates to the current money-grubbing system.

The Hyde Park Declaration, a statement of principles and long-range goals for New Democrats adopted by a large, national group of elected officials in May, 2000, suggested two approaches:

[Americans] believe that our current system for financing campaigns gives disproportionate power to wealthy individuals and groups and exerts too much influence over legislative and regulatory outcomes.

The time for piecemeal reform is past. As campaign costs soar at every level, we need to move toward voluntary public financing of all general elections and press broadcasters to donate television time to candidates.

We already have voluntary public financing of presidential elections. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Vice President Al Gore proposed a similar system for Congressional campaigns through a foundation that could receive and dispense tax-exempt contributions that are not tied to particular candidates. Several states -- most notably Maine and Arizona -- have moved in that direction as well for state-level candidates. But it will take a sustained public debate and extensive education efforts to overcome the visceral opposition of many voters to the idea of their tax dollars going to support "those politicians."

The second idea in the Hyde Park Declaration (a longstanding DLC/PPI proposal) is to place pressure on television networks and their affiliates to "give something back" to the community in exchange for the millions of dollars a year in they receive in various public subsidies by making extensive free time available to candidates.

As purveyors of the politics of ideas, New Democrats probably deplore more than anybody the current system of forcing candidates to spend much of their time raising funds to pay for simplistic television ads. We urge Congress not only to act now, but to act later -- in conjunction with reformers in the states -- to create a higher road to public office.