ure: Figure 1*------------------------------------------------------------------------CONCLUSIONSH.R. 2183 and H.R. 3526 were both defeated late in the 105th Congress. Both bills were considered under a voting procedure known as "queen-of-the-hill," in which several bills are offered as a group. First, each bill was voted on separately and then the bill that received the most support was voted on a second time. H.R. 3526 and H.R. 2183 were two of eleven campaign reform bills considered in early August 1998. The former bill won 237 votes in the initial balloting and the latter bill won only 147 votes. On the final vote, Shays-Meehan passed by a vote of 252-179, attracting the support of 190 Democrats, 61 Republicans, and representative Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the chamber's lone independent. However, the bill is unlikely to become law during the 105th Congress because the McCain-Feingold bill, the Senate version of the bill, met its demise in February 1998, when its supporters could not muster the necessary sixty votes to defeat a filibuster. H.R. 2183 did not fare as well as expected--a measure of the problems in legislating an enhanced party role. Why Campaign Finance Reform Never Worksby Bradley A. SmithBradley A. Smith is an associate professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio and an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute.------------------------------------------------------------------------Think campaign finance reform isn't an incumbent's protection racket? Just look at the spending limits included in the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold bills, the hot "reform" bills on Capitol Hill.Shays-Meehan would limit spending in House races to $600,000. In 1996, every House incumbent who spent less than $500,000 won compared with only 3% of challengers who spent that little. However challengers who spent between $500,000 and $1 million won 40% of the time while challengers who spent more than $1 million won five of si...
