Campaign finance reformer John McCain now faces a new challenge: opposition from organized labor.

When Democrats picked up five Senate seats in the 2000 elections, it must have seemed like a long-awaited victory for Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wisc. Their campaign finance bill had picked up five more supporters, and appeared to have its best chances for passage in years.

The McCain-Feingold reform package passed the House in the last two Congresses and commanded a majority in the Senate. But because it fell short of the 60 votes needed to curb a filibuster, supporters have been unable to get their bill through the Senate. In an ironic twist, the bill's passage is again in jeopardy, this time from a potential loss of support from pro-labor Democrats.

Labor groups say that in the abstract, they back the effort to bar soft money -- donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals that are not supposed to be used to influence federal elections but that have increasingly been employed to finance party "issue advertising" that often is indistinguishable from ordinary campaign commercials.

But the AFL-CIO announced last month it would fight two critical provisions of McCain-Feingold: restrictions on the kinds of advertising unions can run shortly before an election and limits on labor's ability to consult with candidates during campaigns.

Unions gave more than $30 million in soft money during the 2000 campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and spent millions more directly on elections through get-out-the-vote drives and other activities, almost all of it in support of Democrats.

The AFL-CIO "strongly objects" to the bill's ban on issue advertising by unions and corporations within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary that names individual candidates. They charge that the provision unfairly singles out unions and corporations, unconstitutionally restricting their freedom of speech, while allowing other groups to continue to air such advertising as long as they disclose their donors.

For example, the National Rifle Association would still be permitted to run "issue advertising."

The AFL-CIO's other objection stems from the bill's definition of "coordinated activities" between candidates and outside groups. McCain-Feingold supporters believe that current Federal Election Commission rules have allowed groups and candidates to work together too closely and have written a new definition of "coordination" that would prohibit such things as overlapping political consultants or candidates asking outside groups to run ads on their behalf.

In a position paper released last month, the AFL-CIO charged that the legislation "is written so broadly that it could outlaw virtually any union activity, including legislative and other types of advocacy that the government viewed as having a 'connection' with a federal election. Lobbying visits, candidate appearances before union audiences and public demonstrations concerning pending legislation would entail great risk."

"Now that there is finally a chance of McCain-Feingold's passing, the private doubts long harbored by some Democrats and their supporting groups are becoming public," writes Washington Post columnist David Broder.

Furthermore, some Democrats wonder if McCain-Feingold could turn into the equivalent of unilateral disarmament in political campaigns. Democrats now pull in almost as much soft money as Republicans. In 2000, the Democrats raised $199 million (49 percent of all soft money) while the Republicans garnered $211 million (51 percent of the total). Soft money represented 35 percent of all Republican Party funds and nearly half of Democratic Party fundraising during the 1999-2000 campaign.

McCain Feingold would retain the current "hard money" restrictions: $1,000 per person for the primary election and $1,000 for the general election to each candidate for federal office, $5,000 per year to a political action committee (PAC), and $20,000 per year to a national party committee. These limits were part of the post-Watergate reforms.

Because Republicans have more individual donors who can give "hard money," a soft money ban would build upon the GOP's existing minimal fundraising advantage. Some Republicans want an increase in the limits on hard money, arguing it would reduce the amount of time politicians spend raising money from individuals. McCain has said he would be amenable to raising the limits on hard money, but only as part of a larger reform package.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has promised the two sponsors that the Senate will debate their bill on March 19.

Reform Needed	Not Constitutional