* Spending Limits. For combined primary and general elections, they vary from $2 million to $8.25 million, depending on state's population. If limits had been in place in 1992 elections, Senate incumbents would have spent almost one-third, or $37 million, less. Challengers' spending would have been cut by under $1 million. * Resources. Candidates who agree to spending limits would get cut-rate television advertisements and mailings. If opponent overspends limit, candidate would receive communications vou chers.

* Soft Money. Such donations to party organizations, which have had no limits, would be banned. In 1991-92 election cycle, soft money donations totaled $80 million.

* PACs. Contributions from political action committees, which represent special interests, would be banned. If this is found unconstitutional as is expected, PAC contributions would be cut from $5,000 to $1,000; each senator could accept up to 20 percent of spending limit in PAC money.

* Lobbyists. Bans them from contributing funds to those they lobby, and from lobbying those they have contributed to in past 12 months.

* Bundling. Practice of gathering together individual checks and sending them to candidates would be banned.

* Franked Mail. Incumbents banned from mass mailings in election year.

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.