virtually all nonincumbents, with the exception of millionaires, to wage effective campaigns. Political parties commit a greater portion of their resources to helping challengers than do PACs and individual contributors. Legislation that enables political parties to assume larger roles in elections could improve the quality of challengers who run for Congress and lead to more competitive elections. Legislation that converts unlimited and under-disclosed soft money contributions and expenditures into hard money transactions, which are subject to limits and full disclosure, would enhance the legitimacy of party activity in elections. These changes would improve political accountability and representation and help reinvigorate American democracy.The Supreme Court has recognized the danger that campaign finance regulation poses to freedom of speech, and for the past 20 years, beginning with Buckley v. Valeo, has struck down many proposed restrictions on political spending and advocacy, including mandatory spending limits. Supporters of campaign finance reform like to ridicule Buckley as equating money with speech. In fact, Buckley did no such thing. Instead, Buckley recognized that limiting the amount of money one can spend on political advocacy has the effect of limiting speech. This is little more than common sense. For example, the right to travel would lose much of its meaning if we limited the amount that could be spent on any one trip to $100. Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold are Congress's most ambitious attempt yet to get around Buckley. The spending limits in each bill are supposedly voluntary, so as to comply with Buckley, but in fact the provisions are so coercive as to be all but mandatory, which should make them unconstitutional.ConclusonRegardless of whether similar bills or some other campaign reform proposals become law, it is unlikely that political parties in the United States can be restored to the level of influence they...
