Television critics assert that the reason those so-called reality shows – “Survivor” and the like – are so popular is because they give the viewer at home an opportunity to see truly arrogant and obnoxious people in action without having to get too close. Anyone who tuned into C-SPAN Thursday to watch the U.S. House of Representatives debate campaign finance reform enjoyed a similar opportunity.

To call what took place a debate is being charitable to the extreme. And for “enjoyed,” citizens may want to substitute “profoundly embarrassed by.”

The House bill, Shays-Meehan, like the McCain-Feingold version already passed by the Senate, is a modest bill – the ban on unregulated soft money merely closes the most gaping loophole in campaign finance; it is merely a start in the long and difficult process of reducing the influence well-funded special interests have upon both parties and upon the legislation they produce.

The House had passed Shays-Meehan twice before, back when McCain-Feingold was stalled in Senate and it was safe to vote for something that would be good for democracy but bad for incumbents. Their cover blown by Senate passage this spring, House members were faced with reality and, in their first test, deserve being voted off the island.

The debate Thursday had nothing to do with the bill itself or with searching for the compromises that could make it work, but with finding ways to stop reform while pinning the blame on the other party. House Republican leadership, though opposed to the bill, had previously promised not to block a straight up-or-down vote through procedural maneuvers as had their Senate counterparts, but they broke that promise when it mattered by refusing to allow supporters the chance to offer a package of amendments design to address legitimate concerns. By insisting that every adjustment, no matter how minor, be taken up as a separate amendment, GOP leaders sought to defeat the legislation by ensuring it would never come to a vote.

Nineteen Republicans and all but one Democrat refused to take part in this charade and rejected the proposed GOP rules. That majority coalition, however, seemed strangely comfortable with the stalemate that resulted, as if being on the record as supporting campaign finance reform was just as good as getting it passed.

It’s not as good, of course, it’s not even close. Both sides offered up peevishness and trickery when leadership was called for. Both sides, by their panicky reaction to the possibility that the money-raising power of incumbency might be restrained, displayed the very slavishness to special interests that the bill intends to end. Now, both sides must see to it that Shays-Meehan gets taken up again promptly and that it gets the fair and straightforward vote it warrants. And both sides can leave the arrogance and obnoxiousness to others – there’s enough of it on TV without the U.S. House of Representatives joining in.