Spending reform must cover total picture

The spectacle of the raw debate over campaign spending reform now erupting in Washington is not pretty.

But it is typical of the emotion and confusion that occur any time a legislative body tries to enact laws that affect its own members. Suddenly, the full complexity and impact of the law-making becomes clear, the difficulties unimaginable.

Much of the debate has been cast as a struggle between those who would ban so-called "soft money" contributions and those who would merely regulate them. This is an important distinction, but hardly the only thing to watch as this debate moves forward.

"Soft money" is money given to parties rather than individual candidates. It is ostensibly used for party building and get-out-the-vote efforts, but it is often targeted to help particular candidates. Hawai'i has seen its share of this practice.

The soft-money ban is being partnered in the current debate with efforts to limit or ban spending on so-called independent "issue" ads, which are often lightly disguised hit pieces aimed at hurting one candidate or helping another.

In the Senate, there is talk of creating language so that if one part of the bill (say a ban on independent issue ads) is thrown out by the courts, the entire law would be invalidated.

This sounds sensible enough, because a partial invalidation could produce a skewed law that favors one side over another.

But in essence, this non-severability effort is simply a backdoor way to up the chances that no reforms will take place. The right way to do it is to create a law in which both halves of the measure — soft money and issue-ad spending — can stand up to constitutional muster.