527s have few defenders. Both supporters and opponents of campaign finance generally agree that 527s are loose cannons that have to be controlled, but not all agree on how to go about that. Campaign finance reformers say the law needs more tweaking to tame the 527s. The anti-reformers point to 527s and say "See, this is why campaign finance reform doesn't work" - they'd instead roll back the changes McCain Feingold brought. Their arguments follow.

Pro campaign finance reform

Quality not quantity. Reformers say that too much unrestricted money flowing into elections makes campaigns less about the quality of the debate and more about who can make the loudest noise. With less money to funnel into ads, politicians would be forced to provide stronger platforms and address the needs of their voters.

Fighting for funders not constituents. The worst effect of unrestricted money in campaigns is that it risks politicians becoming more beholden to their big funders - usually special interest groups - than they are to their voters. At best, this has the effect of making politicians make choices to please their funders; at worst, politicians and big funders make explicit "i'll scratch your back" deals that are not in the public interest.

Some votes are more equal than others. Reformers believe that when individuals and interest groups can pour money into the campaigns, they get to control the debate - and in effect cast a stronger vote in the election. A more democratic system would give big spenders less control and return the debate back to the voters - poor and rich alike.

Fundraising is time consuming. Reformers' most practical argument is that campaign finance reform is a necessary way to deal with the fact that politicians spend too much time fundraising and not enough time leading.

Anti finance reform

There's not enough money as is. Anti-reformers disagree that there's too much money in campaigns. If compared to commercial advertising, they say political campaigns are cheap. Campaigns would benefit from more, not less, money.

Campaign finance rules help the status quo. There's a reason politicians voted for campaign finance reform, anti-reformers say - it's because reform makes it harder to unseat incumbants. Politicians already in office have the advantage of recognition; if you restrict how much their challengers can raise, you make it that much easier for old politicians to stay in office.

Money will flow - the question is where. Opponents to campaign finance reform argued that if you cut off money to the campaigns, it will only flow elsewhere - and possibly to groups less accountable and responsible than the candidates and parties. The experience of the 527s shows how distorted - and negative - campaigns can get when election money moves outside the control of the candidates themselves.

Free speech isn't always the speech "thinkers" like to hear. Anti-reformers think that letting free speech be truly free speech is always the best bet - and that any moves to curb what people say or how much they spend to say it are dangerous. What wrankles reformers is that free speech in campaigns doesn't always create "thoughtful" debate - but to change that would be hypocrisy, because of course "thoughtful" people would want to change things so more people were being "thoughtful" like them.