A portrait of Robert M. La Follette Sr. hangs in the U.S. Capitol, positioned like a sentinel at the entrance to the Senate chamber where he battled for social justice and government reforms. La Follette's determined expression beneath his unmistakable shock of white hair serves as a reminder not only of Progressivism's indelible achievements over this century, but also of the promise of progressive politics for the next century.

To me, the Wisconsin progressive tradition encompasses a belief in civility, bipartisanship, and respect for the public dollar, as well as the highest ethical standards in government and a real fight for the rights of all Wisconsin families. The people of Wisconsin identify with the tradition of La Follette, Gaylord Nelson, Frank Zeidler, and Bill Proxmire, who looked beyond traditional allegiances to solve problems, treated the people's money with respect, and worked to root out corruption. Wisconsinites aren't impressed by well-heeled candidates or expensive campaigns. We are skeptical of excess. We value ideas, integrity, and elected officials who maintain a strong connection to the people they represent.

Today, however, the progressive tradition is endangered. The influence of wealthy and powerful donors has pulled both major parties to the right. As the Democratic Party flirts with some very conservative ideas, and the Republican Party becomes increasingly controlled by its least progressive elements, it has become clear that meaningful campaign finance reform is a necessary precondition for the Congress to be able to do the people's work in Washington.

La Follette said this of the special interests 100 years ago in Wisconsin: "I determined that the power of this corrupt influence, which was undermining and destroying every semblance of representative government,. … should be broken." So it is today in Washington.

Many are labeling the 105th Congress a "do-nothing" Congress. It failed to pass HMO reform and a patients' bill of rights. It failed to raise the minimum wage. It failed to pass legislation regulating the tobacco industry and reducing teen smoking. And while a bipartisan majority in both houses voted for the modest campaign finance reform bill I co-authored with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a minority in the Senate managed to block reform. Indeed, it seemed as if virtually every major policy initiative that ranked high on the public's priority list was blocked or sidetracked.

At the same time, legislation pushed by corporate special interests on bankruptcy, banking, and so-called regulatory reform nearly made it to the President's desk. These bills will undoubtedly be back in the coming Congress, along with multimillion-dollar campaign contributions by their supporters to the parties and key members of Congress.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, business interests gave more than $653 million in individual, PAC, and soft-money donations in the 1996 campaign. This represented 76 percent of the funds contributed to parties and candidates; 60 percent of business contributions went to the Republican Party or its candidates. When the final figures are available for the 1998 election, I'm sure they will show that corporate special interests made a similarly enormous financial investment in the next Congress.

While the grip of the special interests on our nation's capital has never been stronger, I remain an optimist. I believe that the results of the 1998 elections in my state and around the country have discredited the cynical view that the best way to win elections is to raise the most money and run the most negative ads. The momentum for reform of the campaign finance system is building, and when we succeed, we will bring new faces to Congress and make it easier to achieve progressive goals.

Once we loosen the grip of the special interests, we will breathe new life into the progressive agenda. We can cut spending that's both wasteful and harmful, from the School of the Americas to the B-2 Bomber to the mining subsidy that allows companies to ravage public lands for a few dollars an acre. That's progressive deficit reduction. It would allow us to spend money in areas where it is truly needed: protecting Social Security, saving our public schools, reducing the harmful effects of poverty, and preserving our environment, to name just a few.

I have faith that we can win the fight for reform, just as I had faith that the people of Wisconsin would reelect someone to the Senate who didn't have the most money or the most commercials, but who listened to them and worked hard for them. With meaningful campaign finance reform, the progressivism that took root in Wisconsin's soil can flourish—even in Washington.

We can throw the gatekeepers out, let the people in, and watch a smile break over La Follette's face.