To those in the House truly interested in lessening the undue influence of money on politics, last week’s Supreme Court ruling upholding existing limits on regulated contributions should provide the courage needed to complete what the Senate has begun. By reaffirming that making so-called hard money donations to candidates is not the same as exercising free speech, the court eliminated legitimate concerns about a ban on the soft money donations that occur for the sole purpose of skirting those existing limits.

To those interested in perpetuating a system in which public office is more bought than won, the ruling stands as a warning. The constitutional cover is blown, the excuses are running out fast.

When Congress reconvenes after its Fourth of July break, the House will take up two competing proposals. One is genuine. Shays-Meehan, which passed twice previously with bipartisan support only to have the more famous but similar McCain-Feingold stalled by the Senate, abolishes soft money and will close the election law loophole through which political action committees shoved a half-billion dollars during the 2000 elections.

The other is a sham. The alternative proposed by House Republican leadership does not ban soft money, but merely puts limits on it that are blatantly porous and unenforceable. The net effect of this version, should it become law, would be twofold – it would be utterly ineffective in controlling how money is raised and spent as it adds to cynicism about Congress’ willingness to police itself.

The GOP proposal would seem to corner the market on cynicism. The cap of $75,000 on soft money contributions to national parties is hardly a cap at all to average citizens who increasingly feel their political voices stifled – at least the proposal to put no limit on contributions to state parties fosters no illusions. The stipulation that the soft money can only be used for loosely defined voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts is designed to appeal to black and Hispanic members of Congress and is all illusion. Given the widespread inequities the last election revealed in electoral practices, minority politicians should realize that the real issue is not getting their constituents to the polls, but getting their votes cast and counted.

The GOP proposal is not, however, intended to become law, but merely to create clutter. The greater the differences between the House product and the Senate’s McCain-Feingold, the greater the ability of reform opponents to bury the issue in conference committee. The GOP proposal is, then, not about campaign finance reform but about providing cover for those opposed to reform but not wanting to vote against it.

A reconciled McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan will not perform miracles; it is a temporary patch that, without follow-up, will only give way to new and cleverer loopholes. But to do nothing is for Congress to admit that the soft money loophole is a flaw in campaign finance law it has no intention of mending. To pass the House Republican bill is to do less than nothing and for that there is no excuse.