Both candidates believe the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 hurts Van Dam.

While the much-touted restrictions on so-called "soft money" have fundamentally changed the way campaign funds are donated and spent - particularly on controversial ads such as those produced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org - the act also has transformed the way candidates campaign. McCain-Feingold limits campaign donations to $2,000 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees.

That means candidates have to fill campaign accounts one check at a time. And for challengers like Van Dam, competing with well-established incumbents' war chests is nearly impossible.

"It makes it much harder to raise money," Van Dam says. Bennett's campaign coffers top $2 million; Van Dam is laboring to raise $100,000. "It's a real disadvantage."

Van Dam's struggle to compete - and other candidates' fund-raising activities - may be the only tangible sign of McCain-Feingold's impact on Utah races in the 2004 election.

Besides raising individual donation limits by $1,000, the most significant change of the hard-fought campaign reform measure is the ban on soft money - largely unlimited and undisclosed donations that circumvented federal campaign donation rules for years. Political parties no longer can use that money to pay for negative "issues" advertising.

Along with restrictions on soft money, McCain-Feingold sets a calendar for television ads. Sixty days before the Nov. 2 election - the clock started Sept. 3 - independent organizations cannot run advocacy ads for one candidate or another. Candidates themselves still can purchase TV ad time.

The biggest loophole in the law allows 527 organizations, named after a section of the tax code, to pick up that campaign role - and they have, with zeal. Fallout is visually obvious in controversial ads for President Bush or Sen. John Kerry that run in contested states. And in some states' close congressional contests, both parties and unregulated political organizations will be spending.

But Utah is largely out of the spotlight. Most federal races in the state - with the exception of Republican John Swallow's challenge of Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson in the 2nd Congressional District - are considered landslides for conservative candidates. Likewise, the result of the presidential race in the Beehive State is a foregone conclusion. So the more intriguing activities of 527 organizations will be largely absent.

"It's Utah," says Matthew Burbank, University of Utah political science professor. "The expectation is that the Republicans are going to win - with the exception of Matheson. And the polling has supported that to this point. No one really sees this as a place where they'll spend a lot of money."

In Utah, only Matheson benefited from a third-party ad. Two weeks ago, the United Seniors Association (USA) ran an ad urging voters to call the Democratic congressman and thank him for his vote on the Medicare drug benefit.

USA Chairman Charlie Jarvis said the association is a "grass-roots lobbying organization," not a 527. And Jarvis insists the timing of the ad had more to do with shoring up support for members of Congress who voted for the benefit than affecting the outcome of an election. USA ran similar ads two years ago.

"We don't get involved in campaigns. We only deal with policy issues," Jarvis says. "This has everything to do with what Congress might do this month and nothing to do with any political race whatsoever."

Matheson has had no contact with the association and says he would like third parties to stay out of his race.

"I prefer the people hear from the candidates," he says. "It's important that candidates and voters have that discussion between them and then voters decide based on that discussion who they will vote for."

Swallow, for one, is relieved that third parties likely will stay out of Utah this election season. He says negative ads from outsiders turned off Utah voters and hurt Derek Smith's 2000 campaign against Matheson. Swallow worried about third-party ads that did not materialize two years ago.

"Two years ago, we were able to control our own message," Swallow says. Avoiding third-party advertising this election "allows us to make our issues very clear. We're still able to get a message out that will clearly show the differences between Jim Matheson and myself on policy matters - not on personal matters."

Besides the apparent 527 ad loophole, the law has changed the way candidates raise campaign funds and donors give, says Kelly Patterson, chairman of Brigham Young University's political science department. Candidates are much more dependent on political action committees and political issues committees for donations this election. Other groups like the conservative Club for Growth and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have become "bundlers," directing "individual" donations to particular candidates.

While Bennett has collected nearly half of his $2.1 million war chest - more than $900,000 - from political action committees, $13,500 of Van Dam's $73,400 came from PACs. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the vast majority of Matheson's funding - $726,600 - is from PACs; Swallow has collected just $74,500 from PACs. But the Club for Growth has directed its members to send Swallow more than $125,000.

"For an individual candidate to be successful, they have to develop a rather extensive individual donor base," Patterson says. "It's expensive to do and takes some effort."

Van Dam is almost despondent. Incumbent lawmakers in Washington, D.C., he says, approved a reform law that really only benefits incumbents. He figures he won't be able to buy much if any television advertising. Instead, he's taking his case to voters, one person at a time.

"It's the difference between talking face-to-face with people or talking through a camera lens," Van Dam says. "People can decide which way they would like it to be."