To be able to be put into use and have the United Stateselectoral process benefit, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 mustfirst be passed, and that just may prove to be a task that is too much for thebill to handle. There are many steps that the bill must take and encounter manygroups. The aspects that will have a role in the final fate of the Act areCongress, party organization, interest groups, and unorganized interests. Dueto irreconcilable differences in Congress, and various other problems withinthe parties, and with other interests, no part of the Bipartisan CampaignReform Act of 2001 will actually become a law. Most of the members of Congressdo believe that some sort of reform is needed. Democrats feel that some thingsneed to happen and Republicans believe in other changes.

One might ask why reform is needed for campaign finance,that question is easily answered. The nation has many perceived and arguablytrue ideas of problems dealing with campaign finance. The idea of vote buying,and other such corruptions are popular ideas among voters and politicians.Another perceived problem is that money runs the entire electoral process, youhave to have money to win an election, and you have to have money even to run.Another large problem that is perceived is the idea that at the presidentiallevel, appointments and committee choices are all based on the outcome of theelection.

Congress and its many members have various differences onhow campaign finance should be reformed. The Democratic Party strongly supportsthe McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform proposal. They feel that theimportant legislation would improve their current campaign finance system bydramatically reducing the influence of money on their political process. Many individualsin the Democratic Party feel that subjects other than money and power shoulddrive political elections. The Democrats take this stand because as a whole,the amount of money that the Democrats have at their disposal is far less thanthat of the Republicans.

Republicans have consistently attacked the McCain-Feingoldbipartisan campaign finance reform proposal. The Republican-led U.S. Senatefilibustered the McCain-Feingold bill while House refused to schedule debate ora vote on the Shays-Meehan bill. Being the more wealthy party, it is obviousthat Republican leaders are going to have some objection to a bill that intendsto ban soft money, and limit other areas of finances. Regulations on moneymight mean a leveling of the playing field between the Republicans andDemocrats, something Republicans want to avoid at all costs.

Despite widespread agreement among politically active peoplethat the campaign finance system is flawed in one way or another, fundamentalchanges are unlikely because there is no consensus on what would count as animprovement or how to achieve it. Many Democrats favor a ban or a limit onPolitical Action Committee (PAC) contributions. Many Democrats also favorbanning ?soft money?, spending limits on campaigns, and more public financingof campaigns. On the other hand, many Republicans favor prohibiting laborunions from spending compulsory union dues on political activities. ManyRepublicans also favor raising limits on individual donations, and restrictingdonations from PAC's. Republicans seem to oppose the bill much stronger thanDemocrats do. Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, questions the billand criticized the damage that it would do to political parties. "Thetheory of this bill," said McConnell, "the underlying theory, is thatthere is too much money in politics, in spite of the fact that last yearAmericans spent more money on potato chips than they did on politics."

It is widely agreed upon that the McCain-Feingold bill isthe most prominent chance for a reform to actually take place. The provisionsof the bill are extensive (in an attempt to please both parties) some of themain provisions include: A ban on soft money, the unlimited contributions tothe political parties, from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals;Codification of the Supreme Court's decision in the Beck case, which permitsnon-union members to request a refund of the portion of the agency fees theypay to the union in lieu of dues in some states that is used for political activitiesunrelated to collective bargaining; A provision outlining the circumstancesunder which spending by outside groups or parties will be considered to becoordinated with candidates; A clear prohibition of political fundraising onfederal property. A clear prohibition on contributions of any sort by foreignnationals; A prohibition on candidates using campaign funds for their personalbenefit.

The bill obviously holds many provisions that are meant toplease both the democrats and the Republicans. The big question is, are the twoparties going to be willing to budge and settle for what is proposed?

Another obstacle that I feel the bill is going to have tocontend with is the organization of the two parties. How are the parties goingto react at the local, state, and national levels? At the local level, theparties are not really going to have a problem with the ban on soft money,because soft money is not as much of an issue at the local level. The locallevel will be affected by the fact that spending by outside groups will bemonitored. At the state level, the objections are going to start growing alittle. People running for state positions often benefit from the use of softmoney. Corporations and unions would be prevented from paying directly for issueads. This will be a large change, as now the parties will have to spend more oftheir own money on the ads that they run. Any way you look at it, local, state,or national, the different parties are going to feel the hit in differentareas, and I don't think that they are going to like it.

Another area that is going to present an obstacle to thebill are Political Action Committees (PAC's) and other independentorganizations. PAC's play a huge role in elections, and the parties relyheavily on the money from the PAC's. With the new bill, people would beprohibited from giving ?soft money? to the PAC's. The bill also enacts a windowof time in which independent organizations to express political views withmessages that mention candidate's names. The McCain-Feingold bill not onlylimits donations but also limits political activities that unions,corporations, and special interest organizations typically undertake. Asmentioned earlier the Supreme Court decision in the Beck case will be codifiedwhich will also affect the political process. According to the Supreme Court adues paying nonmember employee (one who pays dues but has yet to join theunion) has the right to object to the local and national union and receive arefund of funds collected for non-representational activities. A union givingmoney to a political action committee or forming their own PAC would be anexample of a non-representational activity. This decision by the Court is goingto hamper the PAC process due to the fact that unions provide a lot of money.Now that it is legal for nonmembers that pay dues to withhold their money, manyunions will not have the same amount of funds at their disposal as they hadpreviously.

As I said before, there are many steps for this bill totake. It faces a long journey ahead of it filled with differences of opinionsbetween Congress members, members of the political parties, and PAC's. Andalthough many people believe that some sort of change would be beneficial, orchange the entire process in a positive way, change is hard. Not just incampaign finance, but in many aspects of politics, and business alike trying tobring about a huge change is going to come up against problems. This is why Ifeel that every part of the McCain-Feingold bill will fail.