WASHINGTON — Stan Chesley's friends joke that one beneficiary of campaign-finance reform might be his own checkbook.

        The Amberley Village trial lawyer has had fund-raisers for President Clinton and other top-shelf Democrats, and his firm, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, is among Ohio's leading “soft money” donors.

        Mr. Chesley believes in reform as long as no hidden wrinkles give one side an advantage. “I'm intrigued by it,” he said. “But it's got to be bulletproof with no loopholes.”

        Richard T. Farmer, a major Republican donor, thinks the same.

        The cost of political campaigns has spiraled, he said, but reform will succeed only if all players are treated equally.

        “I just hope they close all the loopholes,” said the chairman of Cintas Corp., a Mason uniform supply company.

        Campaign-finance reform is still in doubt in Congress. But with so much power at stake in federal elections, almost everyone involved with politics is anticipating the next move.

        The House and Senate have approved bills to ban so-called soft money donations to national political parties and restrict the use of soft money for political advertising close to a primary or general election.

        The two national political parties raised nearly a half billion dollars in soft money during the 2000 election cycle and collected $168 million last year. The money — unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and labor unions — is supposed to be used for party building, advertising and get-out-the vote drives but parties routinely use the cash to help candidates get elected.

        If the legislation is passed and President Bush signs it, millions of dollars in soft money donations suddenly could be funneled away from the national parties.

        According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Mr. Chesley's law firm channeled $307,500 in soft money to Democratic interests in the past two election cycles. Mr. Farmer contributed $845,000 to Republican groups. His wife, Joyce, contributed $15,000.

        The reform bill would increase the amount people can give directly to candidates, from $1,000 for each primary and general election to $2,000 — or $4,000 over a two-year election cycle. The total direct contributions a person could give to candidates, political parties and political-action committees would jump from $50,000 in each election cycle to $95,000.

        Wealthy donors who typically give the maximum amount to candidates or parties would be able to nearly double their direct contributions. Some former soft-money donors also may spread more of their money to political-action committees, which in turn could donate that money to candidates or state parties — through $5,000 donations — or national parties — in $15,000 donations.

        Donors also would be able to contribute $10,000 each year in soft money to state, district and local political parties for party-building activities.

        Some political analysts predict the national parties would continue to solicit big-money donations with the understanding that the money would get chopped into pieces at the state and local level.

        “Money is always going to play a role in our politics,” said Paul Herrnson, director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland in College Park, “But it's a good thing that this (reform) might happen. Campaign-finance laws have been gutted over time.”

        David Leland, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said money would remain a significant factor in political campaigns until broadcasters agree to provide free or sharply discounted television time, usually the most expensive aspect of campaigns.

        He believes national parties and wealthy donors simply would adapt to any new rules and find creative ways to raise and spend money. “I think the intentions are good,” Mr. Leland said. “But I don't think it's going to produce the intended results.”

        Robert Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, dismissed the reform bill as a charade that would weaken political parties. Interest groups would be able to attract money that had been given to the parties, he said.

        “This is the greatest rip-off of the American public that has ever been perpetrated by Congress,” he said.

        Mr. Bennett said he is talking with lawyers and advisers about establishing a parallel state fund-raising committee to deal specifically with federal elections if the reform bill becomes law.

        “They've driven us out of the federal election process,” he said.

        Interest groups as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the advertising restrictions in the bill as a likely violation of the constitutional right to free speech.

        Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said he likely would join a legal challenge if he were unable to amend the advertising restrictions and other parts of the bill when the Senate takes it up in the next few weeks.

        The reform bill would bar the use of soft money for television advertising that mentions candidates in the 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. However, television ads still could be purchased from direct contributions.

        Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group, said the restrictions amount to “blackout zones” during times when voters are the most apt to be paying attention to politics. Mr. Johnson believes some lawmakers are intentionally trying to silence competing voices.

        “I don't think it's ham-handed at all,” he said. “I think they know exactly what they're doing.”

        Whatever the outcome, big donors like Mr. Chesley and Mr. Farmer say they still expect to give money to their favorite candidates and causes.

        “I never felt that I've ever gotten any personal advantage from it,” Mr. Chesley said. “There is a certain kind of government that I'm for.”

        Mr. Farmer said he would rather not give as much money as he does but will continue to participate to ensure his candidates and beliefs are represented.

        “Good government is the most important thing a person like myself should be concerned about,” he said.

30 years of undermining neighborhoods
'Strangler' makes bid for freedom
Big donors wary of try at reform
Plan would trump local gun laws
Projects help motivate Northwest students
Sick child pays price
Ambulances lacking top rescue tools
Butler goes fiber-optic
Enquirer wins eight Ohio top-photo awards
Film crew from GMA tails cow
Health plan, state seek to aid smokers
Jail inmate indicted in police officer shooting
Musical variety brings fame
Proposal could curb consequences of mail schemes
Tax levy watchdog may need second opinion
Thousands of cat lovers converge at convention
Tristate A.M. Report
Road numbers odd mix
Some Good News