that "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of a candidate, but not "issue advocacy" expenditures that only attempt to raise and discuss issues without supporting a particular candidate. The legislation expands on the definition of "express advocacy" to include any general public communication that uses expressions such as "vote for", "support", or "defeat" (S. 25). Further, private groups would be prevented from running issue-advocacy advertisements for or against specific political candidates within 60 days of an election. For example, pro-life and pro-choice groups would both be barred from telling voters about the stances that the candidates in an upcoming election had taken on the issue of abortion rights. The impact of such provisions would be staggering. Many of the specifics of the McCain-Feingold legislation aim to make all elections fair. To decrease the considerable advantages that incumbents hold in elections, the legislation extends a prohibition to the entire calendar year of an election for frank mail (S. 25). The firm demands for full disclosure in the legislation are not present only to confirm that all financing is legal, but also to allow candidates to equate their opponents spending. For example, if the targeted candidate of an independent expenditure is complying with spending limits, the candidate is entitled to an increase in their spending limit equal to the amount of the independent expenditure made against them or for their opponent: "This will enable complying candidates to respond on a timely basis to such expenditures without the constraint of a spending cap" (S. 25). Another prominent proposal for campaign finance reform that is hovering in Congress is the Shays-Meehan bill. Like the McCain-Feingold bill, the legislation proposes stricter limits on independent expenditures and bans soft money (Cantor). But there is a larger focus on the roles that labor unions play in elections. The bi...
