A couple issues sure to come up during the George Bush years are term limits and campaign finance reform.

One will come up a lot quicker than the other, but I would guess we will hear about both before long.

I have mixed feelings about both issues.

I am not opposed to campaign finance reform, but I'm not thrilled about the particular brand of campaign finance reform John McCain is pushing.

McCain really doesn't like soft money. That's the unregulated money that can go directly to parties. There are limits on how much you can give a candidate, but not on how much you can give a party.

His bill would halt the flow of soft money to the national political parties from corporations, unions and individuals. Further, his bill would instruct state party organizations that they couldn't use their unregulated funds on federal elections.

The bill also would instruct corporations and unions that they can't mention the names of federal candidates in advertisements close to election time.

I guess I agree in principle with McCain. I think we can all agree that the cost of getting elected in this country is out of whack.

Right here in good old Indiana, two guys who wanted to represent State House district 64 spent more than $537,000 on their campaigns during 2000.

State House district 64, for crying out loud.

These guys basically spent a half million bucks fighting over a $11,600-a-year job, plus $112 per diem when they're in session and $25 bucks a day to run an office in their district when they aren't in session. It comes out to around $26,000 or so.

Seems kind of silly, doesn't it?

State Rep. John Frenz, D-Vincennes, beat GOP challenger Eric Holcomb, incidentally.

Anyway, the thing that bothers me about the McCain deal is that he basically wants to tell Americans how they can spend their money and what they can say to influence the outcomes of elections.

To me, that seems to place more power in the hands of the government and less power in the hands of the people.

His bill also sounds like it tramples free speech a bit and at least parts of it probably wouldn't pass Constitutional muster if challenged in the Supreme Court.

You know, I really like John McCain. I think he would have made a good president. I would like to see him urge passage of one simple piece of federal campaign finance legislation.

I think it would be great if a candidate could raise all the money he or she wanted based on current campaign finance law. But here's my catch: A certain percentage of it must come from his district.

I mean a high percentage, like 80 or 85 percent.

I think that would go a long way toward leveling the playing field among incumbents and challengers.

As for soft money, as distasteful as it seems, I really don't see how you can tell unions, corporations or individuals how they can spend their money.

If GM, the UAW or Joe Blow wants to give money to a political party, that's their business, not the government's.

I think full disclosure of donations would be a good thing, and I think maybe we need to trust that voters are smart enough to choose candidates who will further their beliefs and ideals.

And while it may seem a bit unseemly that there is so much money in politics, I don't believe it has led to widespread abuse of power, corruption or a massive breach of public trust in Congress.

Maybe we need to accept a bit of unseemliness as part of the cost of living in a democracy.

When it comes to term limits, I really don't have any misgivings.

They work for the president. They work in lots of state legislatures and governorships across the country.

They're working in House committee chairmanships. And they can work in Congress.

I hear lots of voters say they don't understand what happens to people when they go off to Congress.

It seems to change them. They talk about being thrifty and principled before they go to Washington, but after they are there for a while, they seem to change.

Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., thinks he knows why. He has written a book about being in Congress called "The Trust Committed to Me."

The book is excerpted in the most recent edition of "No Uncertain Terms." That's a newsletter published by U.S. Term Limits, a Washington, D.C., group devoted to the cause.

Here's part of what Sanford had to say:

"A well-documented but little discussed study by the National Taxpayers Union showed that regardless of party, the longer a person is in office, the greater his tendency to spend taxpayers' money. It's not that representatives become evil people - just that they're human. Basic biology teaches how remarkably adaptable human beings are to the world around them. Unfortunately, Washington is a place where large sums of money become rounding errors. Over time, congressmen become accustomed to the large sums and the inevitable rounding errors that are part of the political process. And while being in Washington may change the lawmaker's perspective, what it doesn't change is how hard folks at home must work to send that same money to Capitol Hill. For me this always meant less is more when it comes to term limits. The fewer the number of years in office, the less time to grow accustomed to the idea that $50 million is a rounding error."

And this:

"If self-limits do nothing else, they afford a legislator the freedom to stand up for what he believes. If any of us had harbored dreams of a long House career or craved the title of Mr. Chairman, none of us would have voted against a rule on legislation that the party leaders wanted. Such a vote would have doomed us to the backbench for decades."

What a refreshing outlook on serving in the House. Wouldn't it be nice if all congressmen thought like that?

end! [[In-content Ad]]