He's not sure about disclosure. As for McCain-Feingold, he writes, banning soft money and limiting issue ads ''would regulate a huge swath of hitherto inviolate political speech. 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.
But under McCain-Feingold, we'd be left only with the strictly limited ''hard'' money contributions that are more difficult for challengers to raise. 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. This week, the Senate will engage in a prolonged loophole-closing exercise. It will be messy, piecemeal and bipartisan.