And he's not sure about disclosure. Not since the Alien and Sedition Acts more than two hundred years ago have the rights of citizens to speak out on political issues and to criticize the actions of public officials been so threatened by official action. I don't agree, not about the soft money ban. But in making his case, Smith does point out the weaknesses in the reformers' favorite arguments. Press them for examples of quid pro quo, though, and they speak instead of the damage done by the appearance of wrongdoing.
Reformers say they want to make the system less friendly to incumbents.
The basic problem in trying to limit the role of money in politics, Smith says, is the scope of government itself. As long as Washington has the power to influence so many aspects of American life, groups and individuals will use money to try to influence Washington. Next week, the Senate will engage in a prolonged loophole-closing exercise. It will be messy, piecemeal and bipartisan. If it succeeds, it will change the way we finance elections.