But reform should level the playing field and promote more competition, not give entrenched Members of Congress their seats in perpetuity. Referring to an amendment passed on Tuesday that increases the limit for candidates opposed by wealthy self-financed opponents, Nyhart said Yesterday Senators were concerned about being taken on by wealthy opponents who could outspend them. Adding a general limit increase would solidify their position against all comers, not just the wealthy. Before long this bill will be better called The Incumbent Protection Act of 2001 than The McCain-Feingold Bill . Increasing the limit would increase their influence.
Top donors have influence disproportionate to their numbers even at the current limit.
These donors are not representative of the nation economically or demographically. They are wealthier and older than most Americans and most are white males. Raising the hard money contribution limit would exacerbate the advantage incumbents already enjoy over challengers. The effect of bundled hard money contributions on policy is can be clearly seen in recent Congressional actions on bankruptcy reform, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and workplace ergonomics regulations. Party soft money describes unlimited contributions to national party committees.