SO-CALLED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS DANGEROUS TERRITORY

In the aftermath of another election year, there is plenty of noise about the need for what is called campaign finance reform. As they consume lots of this noise, Americans are supposed to forget that many of the so-called problems of financing campaigns are the residue of past "reforms."

Take political action committees. PACs were a post-Watergate reform, created to address the perceived corruption of direct and unlimited giving of millions of dollars by corporations to various campaigns. In their stead, political action committees arose, consisting of voluntary contributions from employees of corporations and members of associations. Donations were limited in the 1974 reform law to $1,000 (individuals) and $5,000 (PACs) for each election. In spite of inflation, these figures have never been adjusted. All giving was to be reported and disclosed publicly -- easily the most salutary of reforms of this era. After 20-plus years, the reformers now want to get rid of the PACs.

Then there is the political phenomenon known as soft money, which is direct giving to political parties. This source of giving must be disclosed as well, but it is unlimited. The parties are free to use these funds to help selected candidates. This, we are told by reformers, is another abuse that can no longer be tolerated. But if the donations are disclosed so that the public is told the source, where is the abuse? The answer to money in politics is to guarantee full disclosure and let the people decide.

Two facts of this political year deserve special mention. One is the matter of John Huang, first of the Indonesian Lippo Group, then of the Clinton Commerce Department (where he held top-secret clearance) and late of the finance operation at the Democratic National Committee. This has all the hallmarks of a scandal of immense proportions. Congressional hearings and even an independent counsel are warranted to discover whether Huang was at the center of a massive influence-peddling operation regarding enormously sensitive international trade issues.

The other is the multimillion-dollar voter education effort conducted by Big Labor to defeat Republican members of Congress. Much of the Clinton effort to push for reform would further cement Big Labor's clout while neutering that of business and other interests. There is plenty of dangerous nonsense flying under the banner of campaign finance reform.