Disappointed by Senate passage of the soft-money ban and surprised by this week's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling reaffirming the constitutional right of Congress to limit gifts funneled through political parties, reform opponents have regrouped.

House Republican leaders are maneuvering to sidetrack the McCain-Feingold campaign-reform bill, scheduled for debate in the House in July. If their newest ploy should succeed, it would make this the third consecutive Congress in which the popular and much-needed reform, although supported by solid majorities in both houses, has fallen victim to a parliamentary shell game.

In 1998 and again in 1999, the House passed Shays-Meehan (the House equivalent of McCain-Feingold) by impressive bipartisan margins. But the GOP leadership had the last laugh. House leaders deliberately delayed scheduling their vote until so late in the session that then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott could keep it off the Senate calendar.

House members of both parties who privately wanted to keep on taking ``soft money'' contributions could avoid public criticism by voting for the bill, knowing it wouldn't see the light of day on the Senate floor.

Pre-empting repeat of this cynical tactic, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this year began demanding an early Senate vote. A bipartisan group of senators passed it handily. House GOP leaders have stalled their vote for three months, but supporters have finally forced their hand, backed by growing public disillusionment with the delaying tactics. A vote has been promised during July.

Now Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Tom DeLay have a new ploy: Let the matter come to a vote, but adopt an amended version to require a House-Senate conference.

Ohio Republican Bob Ney is drafting the diversionary language. If at least one amendment can be attached, Hastert may quietly appoint House conferees committed to opposing any conference agreement and stalling the bill to death behind closed doors.

The extremes to which campaign-reform opponents will go to defeat meaningful change reveal what a sledgehammer private lobbies hold over lawmakers these days.

Large campaign contributions are like addictive narcotics. They create a helpless dependency in lawmakers seeking reelection. When their donors come seeking preferential legislative treatment, they usually get access.

Members of both parties have become sickeningly beholden to the men with the money. In 98 percent of all contested political races during 2000, the candidate who raised the bigger war chest won.

Reeling from the shock of the Watergate scandals, Congress in 1974 enacted the century's most genuine effort to control runaway campaign spending, including strict limits on individual contributions and enforceable public-reporting requirements. Campaign gifts from corporations and unions were banned.

With the best intentions but too little foresight, the authors allowed civic and charitable gifts to political parties for voter registration and get-out-the vote efforts. A trickle became a flood.

Last year, $500 million in candidate-targeted money gushed through this loophole from corporations, unions and wealthy special-interest sources. It's this loophole that McCain-Feingold would close.

Looking at these figures, we might ask ourselves: Who really picks our nation's leaders today? Is it the people? Or the contributors?

The McCain-Feingold bill isn't a cure-all. But it's a modest beginning on things that must be done if ours is again to be a government of, by and for the people. Maybe that's something worth thinking about on Independence Day.

Jim Wright is the former Speaker of the House of the US House of Representatives.

©2001 Fort Worth Star-Telegram

###