Supporters are riding the Enron controversy to make progress getting this turkey rolling again.

"Campaign Finance Reform" is the most blatant grab for power by the Democratic Party that I have seen in years, sucking in well-meaning people who are honestly concerned about the influence of large money donors on politics.

From the article:

The bill would virtually ban soft money, the unlimited donations that unions, corporations and individuals make to the political parties. Most of the money is spent on scathing television commercials that stop just short of explicitly advocating a candidate's election or defeat. The measure also would ban certain types of political advertising in the final 60 days of a campaign.

So, who gets more big corporate donations (theoretically--most corporations dump cash into both parties)? Democrats or Republicans? Who wants to take a bet that "unions" will somehow drift off this list before the bill goes up for signature?

If political advertising is banned, where are people going to get their information? Could it be from the media, whose members are currently topping out at 3 percent Republican?

If, God forbid, someone actually gets public campaign financing passed as well (don't know if it's any part of these current bills), then who gets to decide who gets money for campaigns and who doesn't? Ever give that much thought? Could it be...THE INCUMBENTS? Remember how much luck third parties had getting into campaign debates?

Cripes, people, PLEASE don't buy this.

My solution to government corruption is much simpler, but vast flocks of winged pigs will darken the skies at noon before this happens.

The one thing going against these bills is that many politicians from both parties, are quite comfortable the way their bloated power is consolidated right now, and probably don't want to see the pot stirred by changes in the rules. Their dilemma is that they must be seen to support "reform," yet must somehow secretly prevent it from happening. The ideal solution for the politician would be to vote enthusiastically for a bill that would certainly be vetoed by the President. Everybody wins, with the added bonus for Democrats of making the President look anti-reform. However, Bush has promised to sign reform legislation, handing the wet baby back to the legislature. I'd like to think Bush was smart enough to do this on purpose.

This bears a lot of watching.