This move could produce a Rose Garden signature from President George W. Bush and put us on the path to more accountability, cleaner campaigns and restore trust with the American people. I worked with a devoted group of bi-partisan reformers to bring about a mandate for change, not once, but twice in the House bringing the issue to the critical place it is today. However, I have become increasingly convinced that a simple and straightforward compromise would meet the test of real reform without hurting the political parties' ability to recruit good candidates, build their grass roots and drive a message when appropriate. The solution is simple. We should ban soft money outright.
Soft money is the unlimited, unregulated money that has no business influencing politics.
Some alternatives call for a tripling of hard dollar limits, a change which, while justified, may be too much to digest at once. A reasonable compromise might be to double the individual limits, which have not been increased at all in 27 years, and then index future increases to keep up with inflation. This move is necessary in order to allow political parties and candidates to compete with wealthy individuals and special- interest groups. Simultaneously, a soft money ban would eliminate the unregulated and unlimited influence of special-interest groups while protecting their constitutional right to free speech. Citizens need not look any further than the HMO battle against patient protection to see how critical it is to eliminate the influence of soft money.