When George W. Bush reluctantly signs the
          campaign-finance reform legislation that bears the name of
          his most bitter Republican rival, it will be easy to celebrate
          John McCain’s moment of triumph. After so many years of
          struggle against autocratic Congressional leaders, after so many
          cases of transparent bribery at the highest levels of politics
          and government, the pending ban on huge contributions of
          "soft money" is obviously a victory for virtue over venality.

          That righteous feeling was only intensified by the
          appearance of Senator Mitch McConnell, former bagman
          for the Senate Republican campaign committee and chief
          opponent of the McCain-Feingold bill, announcing his plans
          to restore the corrupt status quo in court. At his side stood
          Kenneth W. Starr, the former independent counsel whose
          true vocation—which he never set aside during his years of
          partisan prosecution—is defending the sellers of tobacco
          products and lethally flawed automobiles.

          So there was a fine pair of corporate advocates, on their way to the discredited
          Supreme Court to uphold special interests against the popular will. A perfect tableau
          of conservative power in action—except for that other guy standing next to Messrs.
          Starr and McConnell, whose name happens to be Floyd Abrams.

          Unlike many opponents of the McCain-Feingold reforms, Mr. Abrams must be
          taken seriously as a person of principle. His advocacy of press freedom in the
          Pentagon Papers case won him an honored place in history. Although he is no
          longer as active in politics as he once was, his sympathies have always been on the
          liberal left. And in this case, he is seeking to thwart the highest editorial priority of
          his best-known client, The New York Times.

          While he won’t comment on The Times or Mr. McConnell, Mr. Abrams is more
          than willing to explain why he said yes when the Republican Senator called to ask
          for his help. The McConnell appeal forced him to confront his own increasing
          discomfort with a bill that, to him, represents an intolerable violation of free speech
          by banning "issue ads" 60 days before a general election. This provision is intended
          to cover the gaping loophole in existing law, which permits special interests to fund
          television campaigns for or against particular candidates, so long as those ads don’t
          expressly urge a particular vote.

          "In trying to plug the loopholes, what the Congress has done is to attack speech
          itself. Speech is not a loophole," says Mr. Abrams. As written, the bill "not only
          raises serious First Amendment issues, but in many respects insuperable First
          Amendment problems, when the government limits speech about elections. I find
          that to be particularly so with respect to limitations on so-called issue advertising.
          The core First Amendment principle is that when people speak out on public affairs,
          the government has no power to limit them."

          He departs somewhat from his Republican allies on the question of soft money,
          opposing the flat ban but not some limitation on amounts. As he suggests, many
          soft-money contributors have no corrupt motivation, while some hard-money
          donors, whose influence will be enhanced by McCain-Feingold, are clearly seeking
          favors from government.

          "It may just be that we can’t deal with this problem as much as we might like to,"
          Mr. Abrams warns. "The First Amendment has that effect sometimes, of preventing
          us from solving some problems the way we might like to …. We ought to have
          much more public disclosure, instant public disclosure of money that is contributed,"
          he adds. "I also think that if there’s a real concern about genuine corruption, as
          opposed to the appearance of corruption, we ought to take a harder look to see if
          politicians are bought. Maybe we ought to expand the definition of what’s corrupt.
          But that’s an issue for the criminal law."

          Still, Mr. Abrams isn’t insensitive to the impact of inequalities of wealth and power.
          And the solution he advocates would be, for his conservative comrades, a far worse
          nightmare than the half-measures he is helping them to overturn. He believes the
          best way to achieve electoral equity without violating freedom is public financing.

          While Congress is a long way from passing any such profound reform, the
          McCain-Feingold bill does mandate the U.S. Comptroller General to examine the
          "clean money/clean election" campaigns of Arizona and Maine—the first states to
          implement serious public financing—and report on their efficacy to Congress next year.

          What that study will reveal, if performed rigorously, is that public financing
          (combined with limits on private donations) can reduce politicians’ dependence on
          special interests, encourage citizen participation in elections and improve the
          competitiveness of non-incumbents—all at nominal expense to taxpayers.

          Opponents of McCain-Feingold gleefully predict that those "soft" millions will
          infiltrate the system again as "hard" millions. If they’re right, the only effective
          response will be to match the special interests dollar for dollar with public funds.
          According to Mr. Abrams, "there is no constitutional problem with that."

          You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.