Point Of View

Mike Forbes has announced he's running again for Congress, and paints himself as something of a maverick when it comes to toeing Newt Gingrich's line, yet, as of last week, at any rate, he had not signed a petition to release campaign reform legislation from committee so that it could be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.

Everyone knows the representative form of government has been reduced by and large to a money game, and that the time is long overdue for reform, or for at least an attempt at reform. So what is Mr. Forbes's and the other Republican and Democratic holdouts' problem? No doubt, Democrats were the worst offenders in the last election, though when it comes to "soft money" slush funds controlled by the powers in the major parties there is plenty of chicanery to go around.

So, let's talk about reform in a public forum. Mike Mansfield said not long ago that Congress rarely debated anything anymore. Elections, as everyone knows, are decided largely by sound bites. Senators and Representatives are beholden to campaign donors. Lobbyists do their best to subvert the system as they go about the halls of Congress doing their corporate employers' bidding.

"The scandalous queston that hangs over modern government and excites perpetual outrage is about political money and what it buys," wrote William Greider in "Who Will Tell the People" - six years ago. But the perpetual outrage he saw is counterbalanced by a lot of cynicism and apathy, which may, in the end, hold sway, if people - however busy they may be earning livings - don't begin to take more of an interest in regaining a government by, for, and of the people.

The bills in the House and Senate would at least make a start by outlawing soft money contributions to political parties, i.e., to the people who control them, and would also, according to a New York Times editorial, "apply fund-raising restrictions to campaign attack ads sponsored by independent groups and broadcast within 60 days of an election."

Ideally, campaigns of the future will be financed solely through public funds and will be evenhanded so that money will no longer gravitate toward incumbents, and political figures no longer will act as mere brokers for "clients," but will, as was originally intended, act as mediators between citizens and their government. There may come a day again when debate leads to the resolution of issues, rather than money tilting outcomes toward interest groups which have brought the most pressure to bear.

That day, though, may be far in the future. In the meanwhile, we should do everything we can to limit the effect of money on what should be a debate-and-resolution process.

Jack Graves