Thus did the cry go out from Capitol Hill, and Republicans dutifully answered the call. The threat? A ban on million-dollar soft money donations to political parties. Horrors!

Now that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill has passed both houses of Congress and President Bush has indicated he will sign it, its opponents, led by Senator Mitch McConnell, are preparing a court challenge. Among those Senator McConnell enlisted to join him in his noble fight is our old friend Kenneth Starr. No word yet on whether McCain or Feingold will be accused of receiving oral sex from soft-money donors.

The other provision of the bill (apart from the soft money ban) that so angers Republicans is one meant to restrict phony "issue ads" that independent groups run in Congressional races. The bill would force groups who want to campaign for or against a candidate to abide by the same rules that the candidates themselves and the parties have to: limits on the size of contributions, and full disclosure to the Federal Election Commission. The bill acknowledges that the "magic words" standard the Supreme Court set out in 1974 (if you say "vote for," "elect," etc. the ad is a campaign ad, and if you don't it's an issue ad) is meaningless. McCain-Feingold substitutes a time frame instead: any ad mentioning a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary will be treated as a campaign ad, regardless of whether the magic words are used.

Does the 60-30 provision provide a more realistic distinction between electioneering ads and issue ads than the magic words standard? Consider this: a recent study by the Brennan Center found that 99% of "issue ads" were actually meant to influence the outcome of a race, and barely 10% of candidate ads - which are electioneering by definition - even used the magic words.

But alas, it seems a better than even bet that the 60-30 provision will be struck down by the Supreme Court, whose current majority seldom hesitates to come to the defense of the powerful. But if the soft-money ban gets upheld (which also seems like a good bet, since one cannot argue against it without arguing that there should be no limits on contributions at all, a position the Court has repeatedly rejected), those seeking to wield influence will probably take the millions they would have given the parties and pass them to an emerging species, the independent fat-cat coalition. These groups - sure to multiply like a noxious virus - will raise and spend money on campaign ads, scrupulously avoiding the magic words. Keep your eye out in coming election years for a sea of vicious "issue" ads from groups with names like "Americans for America," asking you to "Tell Congressman Forehead to stop betraying our children."

Of course, Republicans in Congress argue that regulating these groups - limiting their contributions and demanding that they identify who they are - is a profound insult to the First Amendment. After all, if free expression is about anything, it's about those with wealth and power being able to dominate political debate. Isn't it?

A limit on the purchase of television ads doesn't limit anyone's speech - that remains intact. What it limits is the ability to be heard by millions, something that belongs only to a few to begin with. What Senator McConnell and his allies are really championing is not free speech per se but free speech for the wealthy. Think about it this way: whose rights are infringed by a $2000 limit on contributions? Only those people for whom $2000 is pocket change, those who if it were legal would pay millions to fund commercials promoting their favorite candidate. For the rest of us, a $2000 contribution limit is really no limit at all, any more than setting a speed limit of 150 miles per hour limits those who don't own Ferraris. Although opponents of reform cry that the constitution will be shredded if McCain-Feingold stands, it is only the wealthiest donors who will be affected one way or the other.

Just as President Bush was so angered when Democrats suggested delaying tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy that he offered to lay down his life - "Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes!" - many in the Republican party are now in high dudgeon over the impending demise of soft money and the possibility that phony issue ads could be subject to regulation. One example: American oligarchs never had a better friend in Congress than Senator Phil Gramm, whose determined opposition to any and all government benefits for the poor never kept him from carrying water for the Enrons of the world. On Thursday, Gramm was so moved by Senator McConnell's opposition to campaign finance reform that in a tribute to the Kentucky Republican's fervent defense of influence-buying, Gramm actually began to cry as he spoke on the Senate floor. The heartfelt show of emotion was truly a sight to behold, particularly coming from a man who once said of older Social Security recipients, "Most people don't have the luxury of living to be 80 years old, so it's hard for me to feel sorry for them."

President Bush dropped his opposition to campaign finance reform when its passage became inevitable - and when he realized that if the contribution limits to candidates are raised from the current $1000 to $2000 as the bill provides, he could double his 2000 take of $185 million in 2004. But the reaction to the passage of McCain-Feingold shows once again whose side the Republican Party is on - and unless you're a millionaire, it ain't you.

Paul Waldman is publisher of the Waldman Political Report (www.waldmanreport.com).

###