MCCAIN-FEINGOLD IS PART OF THE PROBLEM

Perhaps some of the U.S. senators who have spent recent days debating the McCain-Feingold bill, whose aim is to limit certain political contributions, actually understand the complexities of what the legislation proposes to do.

But for most Americans, the debate over donations to help elect candidates boils down to two basic camps: Those who think politicians are basically corrupt and need to have their access to campaign cash severely restricted. And those who think campaign contributions are a form of free speech on which limits have been counterproductive and, in some cases, unconstitutional.

Caps on campaign contributions are a product of the Watergate era when the nation was aghast at election shenanigans. Not that there weren't corrupt political campaigns before the 1970s. But it was the full public display of congressional hearings on television sets across the country that brought out the ire of many Americans.

There are two kinds of political contributions. One is direct donations to a candidate. The other is soft money, which includes contributions to political parties. In turn, Republican and Democratic operatives use the soft money (nearly $500 million over the last two years) to push issues that favor a candidate or discredit his opponent.

The McCain-Feingold bill would ban soft money while raising some of the limits on direct contributions to candidates.

That, along with some other changes, appear to favor incumbents. For example, the bill would ban certain types of broadcast advertising close to an election. In particular, issue ads wouldn't be permitted in the final days of a campaign.

Senator McCain got his wish, perhaps his only legacy of a failed attempt to become the GOP nominee in last year's presidential contest. That wish was to get the Senate's undivided attention for two weeks to push his and Feingold's bill to passage. Now that the bill has been sent to the House, McCain has had his day in the sun.

The bill faces serious challenges in the House. And even if some form of the bill passes muster and arrives on the desk of President Bush, there is no guarantee he will sign it.

Most of all, the bill is an attack on free speech, an onslaught that not only curbs Americans in their participation in elections, but gives an outright advantage to incumbents desperate to preserve their elective offices.

That's a shame for the many Americans who already are so disillusioned by the political process.

The McCain-Feingold bill is not a solution. It's part of the problem.