e sources, and who agree to limit their own spending ($25,000 per election in small states, $50,000 per election in large states) would be granted 30 minutes of free TV time; reduced costs for advertising; and breaks on direct mail costs. h "Leveled Playing Field". In races where one of the candidates does not abide by the spending limits, the other candidate would be permitted to accept individual contribution up to $2,000, PAC donations up to $5,000, and addition party funds. h No Overseas Contributions No contributions would be allowed from citizens ineligible to vote in U.S. elections. Source: CNN.com A previous version of McCain-Feingold was filibustered by Senate Republicans during the 104th Congress, and while there is currently some bipartisan support for the measure, most Republicans oppose it, citing several objections. First, they say it would unconstitutionally restrict free speech. McCain-Feingold supporters, in turn, have produced a letter signed by 126 constitutional scholars attesting to the constitutionality of banning soft money. Republicans also say McCain-Feingold would tilt the playing field toward the Democrats, who they say benefited from labor unions' $35 million ad campaign in 1996 congressional races. The GOP would like to see a ban on labor spending compulsory union dues on political activities, a non-starter proposal for Democrats. Republicans also say that McCain-Feingold, in placing greater limits on campaign spending, would increase the influence of the media. A major cost of campaigns, they point out, is the high cost of advertising. Many Republicans, who believe that the media is biased in favor of Democrats, fear that money limits would restrict their ability to get their message out. Given the near unanimous Republican opposition, Republic Representative Sam Farr introduced his own revisions of the finance proposal...
