GOP deals with its imperfect choice

Washington Post:

Some of the same conservative activists who have recently signed on to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign are also still hard at work trying to undo his most famous legislative accomplishment.

To date, these grudging McCain supporters have mounted four Supreme Court challenges and others in lower courts to dismantle the landmark 2002 law known as McCain-Feingold. The legislation, by McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), made broad changes in federal political fundraising. Conservative activists have attacked it since its passage as an infringement on free speech.

Now, with McCain the apparent Republican nominee, these same activists have said they will support McCain but have no intention of dropping their challenges to the fundraising law. Their determination to undo McCain's legislation speaks to the deep fault lines that divide the Republican base from McCain -- and to the challenges McCain faces in winning them over.

David Norcross, a former Republican National Committee general counsel and lobbyist who backed Mitt Romney earlier, said he would support McCain "100 percent" while still trying to erase McCain's campaign finance law from the books.

"Whether he's the nominee, the president or whatever, those of us who have been in the trenches are not about to back off," he said.

James Bopp Jr., an RNC member from Indiana and early Romney supporter, said that while he continues to challenge McCain's legislation, he will also work to deliver McCain to the White House.

"If you want to participate in politics, you have to be prepared to deal in a world in which there are imperfect choices," Bopp said.

...

I think this will not be the only issue on which McCain will not have the support of the party base. Immigration reform will be another which is not too surprising since the base also opposed President Bush in defeating the last attempt to create a different "path to citizenship" for those who broke the law to get here.

The best reform would be no limits on contributions, but immediate disclosure of any contributions so that voters can judge for themselves where a candidate's support is coming from. If George Soros is funding a Democrat, for example, Republicans running against that candidate can imply a certain world view generated the contribution and deal with the candidate accordingly.