The hotly contested soft money restriction bill that has reached Capitol Hill could markedly alter the way federal re-election campaigns are financed in future years if passed, political experts at Penn State say.

The legislation — dubbed the Shays-Meehan bill after sponsors U.S. representatives Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) — would ban the use of "soft money," unlimited monetary funds donated to political parties by corporations, interest groups and wealthy citizens.

On Feb. 14, the House of Representatives voted 240-189 to pass the bill and then to move it onto the Senate floor.

The measure has yet to be heard in the Senate.

The Senate is where Democrats hold the majority, 51-49, and there it would require 60 votes to receive ratification.

"The bill is going to temporarily disrupt the flow of money to politicians and force some kind of devising of new technology for people who want to influence politics," said James Eisenstein, professor of political science.

Robert O'Connor, associate professor of political science, said that if the Shays-Meehan reform were to be passed, a revolutionary shift in the political system would not immediately occur.

"This bill isn't going to clean up everything, but it's a start," he said. "It'll make it more transparent for the people and the media to see where the money is coming from."

Soft money is most commonly used for television advertisements that generally criticize an opposing legislator's political performance or his or her character.

Eisenstein and O'Connor agreed the bill's passage is far from guaranteed, but the chances of its approval remain sizeable.

"It's like trying to predict who's going to win an athletic contest," Eisenstein said.

Penn State College Democrats President Jared Cram was among those confident the bill would ultimately pass.

"The Republicans could filibuster it to death, but I don't see it happening," he said.

Those opposed to the planned legislature include interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, as well as freedom of speech groups, Eisenstein said.

"As a freedom of speech advocate, I'm a bit opposed to it," Penn State College Republicans member T.J. Kokolis said.

"But it is a step in the right direction, as far as the idea of reforming campaigns goes," he added.

Eisenstein cautioned that if the proposed reform passes, savvy politicians would eventually discover loopholes in the system.

He said the only way to reduce the impact of campaign contributions was to remove the incentive politicians have to seeking those large sums of money.

"Candidates can demonstrate big grassroots support without having to rely on large contributions," Eisenstein said, referring to his idea of allowing public campaign donations to be made.

O'Connor believes support behind the legislation was greatly boosted by the explosion of the Enron scandal, as well as Americans' newfound interest in suspicious political dealings.

"There's a smell out there," he said.

Cram added that the political atmosphere is "ripe for change," especially with corporate and political relationships so heavily in question.

The Enron case is an example of exactly why some sort of change is needed, he said.

"There's talk of Bush's 'axis of evil,' but we're seeing the evil of access," he said.