The opponents of campaign finance reform have succeeded -- temporarily -- in killing legislation in the House that a majority of Americans clearly want passed. The House leadership may have sidetracked campaign finance reform for awhile, but it will be back.

In fact, key supporters of the bill such as Reps. Christopher Shays, R-CT and Martin Meehan, D-MA, may seek a "discharge" petition forcing Speaker Dennis Hastert to bring the bill up again for a clean "up-or-down" vote. The opponents of the legislation set up a process designed to pick the bill apart in separate votes as a way to kill it. The American people and the proponents of the bill deserve to have House members go on record either for or against this important campaign reform.

A discharge petition requires the signatures of a majority of House members and it has been used twice before – in 1998 and 1999 – to force the Republican leadership to bring campaign finance reform to the floor for a vote. Both those times the legislation passed the House.

In this round, the House leaders used procedural rules so that the legislation would have been voted on one piece at a time rather than in one vote. In fact, 18 Republicans broke ranks with their leadership in support of allowing a straight vote on the legislation.

While the opponents of campaign finance reform may have won this round, the bill's supporters have a number of strategies for moving the bill forward. The discharge petition is one possible strategy. It is also possible that the Senate -- which passed the measure in April -- may attach it to a critical piece of legislation.

The measure, which I co-sponsored and which has bipartisan support in both houses, would close the biggest loophole in campaign financing law by banning unregulated soft money contributions to political parties. Soft money is raised by national parties in unlimited amounts and is spent on behalf of their candidates at the local and state levels. By law, these candidates are forbidden to accept direct contributions of soft money for their own campaigns.

The reform bill would also limit issue advocacy that targets specific candidates. Issue advocacy has been used by politically interested groups as a way to circumvent federal election laws. The legislation also would tighten disclosure requirements, providing additional information to the American people on the financing of campaigns for federal office.

Unregulated soft money and issue advocacy have become an increasing part of the election process. Data for the 2000 election shows that some $495 million in soft money was raised by both major parties, nearly doubling the $262 million that was raised in 1996. During the 2000 election, $509 million was spent on issue advocacy, an increase of $374 million from the 1996 election.

The American people are sick and tired of an election system that is awash in money, undermines confidence in government and that circumvents the intent of election law. We need to put a stop to unregulated soft money and limit issue advocacy. It's time to give government back to the people.