Less campaign reform is better than more

Much of the fuel for the campaign-finance reform measure that barreled through the U.S. House recently appears to be coming from the waves of reaction to the Enron fiasco. The company's hefty donations to politicians of every stripe have been well-documented. It's curious, though: The failure of Enron affected thousands of employees and investors in ways far more devastating than any officeholder, yet it is the political-contribution aspect that is getting so much attention from Congress.

Every effort to impose campaign-finance reforms has been aimed at making elections fairer and removing the undue influence of special interests. These misguided attempts have done little to improve the election process. Indeed, every piece of legislation limiting or controlling political spending in some way also has the effect of improving the lot of someone else, often in ways that are much more undesirable than the straightforward donation of financial support, big and little, to candidates.

And the loopholes that political strategists find in every bit of campaign-reform legislation are usually wide enough to let millions of dollars gush into the treasuries of favored parties and candidates in one way or another. These end runs around the intent of congressional do-gooders would be downright comical if it weren't for the fact that millions of dollars under any circumstances is rarely something to be laughed at.

The problem with campaign-finance reforms to date is the underlying misconception that legislative tinkering will make things better. In reality, less effort to somehow legislate contributions to candidates -- or, better still, elimination of the rules already in place -- would produce fewer problems and more accountability of whose money is likely to influence future political decisions.

Repealing most, if not all, of the existing campaign-finance laws would pave the way for simple reporting procedures to clearly inform the American public about who's giving what to candidates.

With the capabilities of the Internet, campaign-finance reports could be distributed widely and in a more timely way than the current laws provide for. Having every candidate's contributions and campaign spending available frequently throughout the election process would give voters a quick and clear snapshot of where the money is coming from and where it's going.

Real campaign reform would take away the limits that distort the reality of what Americans want and are willing to support in the form of cash. Clearly, the U.S. House is bent on further curbs on those rights. It will be up to the U.S. Senate to halt or reduce the damage.