been more successful than Democrats at raising soft money, claim just the opposite. Indeed, many GOP lawmakers -- most prominently, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky -- say that American campaigns are underfunded. Pointing out that the $1,000-per-candidate contribution limit has remained unchanged since the 1970s, they say contribution limits should be raised. Congress should stiffen disclosure requirements, they say, so voters can better know where a candidate's money comes from. Opponents also contend banning soft money would violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee. While constitutional scholars have differed on this point, it's clear that a soft-money ban would face a court challenge. "We're going down the road here of bureaucratizing the Bill of Rights in a way which will be a disaster for this country," Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said(Jackson 69). Despite such drastic language, it is said that the issue is really dependent on the current opinion of the American Public (Hastings 05). For any reform to pass, most observers believe the public must demand it. Though polls suggest Americans want some form of campaign reform, efforts to galvanize critical momentum appear to have fizzled. Likewise, Grassroots efforts haven't exactly taken off. A bipartisan group began a petition drive in March 1997 to gather symbolic 1,776,000 signatures supporting Campaign Finance Reform. At the White House, President Bill Clinton launched a crusade for reform headed by former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Republican Sen. Nancy Kassebaum-Baker of Kansas. The results of these efforts were mediocre at best, showing just how divided the public is on the issue, and once again reaffirming how hard it will be to make significant progress (Jackson, 68)But there seems to be a nagging question at the heart of this matter: Is all of this commotion necessary? Should drastic measures be taken to reform the current system? ...
