Campaign Financing

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Campaign Finance Archives page.

Back from Summer Vacation: The Supreme Court decides Campaign Finance

The Supreme Court Justices don’t cut their summer vacation short unless it’s really important. The last time they went back to work early was 29 years ago, thanks to the Watergate scandal. In 1974, the court forced Nixon to hand over the Watergate tapes, which revealed corruption at the highest levels.

This time, the Supreme Court convened early in order to review the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which was designed to prevent campaign corruption.

Campaign-finance reform isn’t new

Throughout the 20th century, Congress has regulated campaign spending in an attempt to ensure fair elections. They began to limit the campaign contributions of wealthy individuals and special-interest groups way back in 1907.

More recently, in 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which consolidated the various campaign-finance statutes from the previous decades. The Watergate scandal proved that FECA needed to be strengthened, so it was amended in 1974. (Interesting note: Nixon paid the Watergate burglars with illegal campaign contributions.)

The 1974 amendments further restricted campaign contributions by individuals, corporations, and political action committees (PACs); imposed spending limits on candidates; and established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to help enforce the laws.

In 1976, Congress again amended FECA in response to the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo.

Buckley v. Valeo

In the seventies, opponents to campaign finance reform challenged FECA in the courts. They claimed that the 1974 amendments limited freedom of speech by limiting campaign dollars. The majority of the justices agreed.

The majority opinion declared speech and money to be intimately connected –without dollars, a rich debate on the issues cannot take place. Most forms of communication and information dissemination require spending, they reasoned.

So the court decided that several aspects of FECA violated the First Amendment, including the mandatory limits on candidates spending of their own money, restrictions on independent expenditures, and caps on total campaign spending. However, they upheld limits on individual and committee donations to candidates.

You say BCRA, I say McCain-Feingold (some say “call the whole thing off")

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) is otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold law, named after its authors John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI). Technically, the BCRA is an amendment to Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The pair claims that BCRA plugs the FECA loopholes, which revealed themselves during the last 27 years of campaigns.

The BCRA is long, complex, and took six years to generate. But these are the two points that everyone is talking about:

1. Re-regulation of “soft money."
2. Ban on corporate, union, and special-interest sponsorship of televised campaign ads.

Soft money and hard money

The term “soft money" refers to large, unregulated contributions to political parties. “Hard money" contributions are regulated, and go to individual candidates.

Under the BCRA, soft money contributions to parties are limited to $25,000 a year, total. This change will hurt both leading parties, but Democrats will feel it most acutely. The Democratic Party relies on large donations by unions and special interests, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). And while soft-money is important to the Republican Party as well, they receive a large number of small contributions from individuals. By summer 2003, Bush had raised $34.2 million in hard money for the 2004 Presidential campaign.

In order to get the bill passed, The Democrats and McCain Republicans gave the other Republicans something they wanted. The BCRA increased the limit on hard-money. Now, an individual can donate $2,000, instead of the previous $1,000.

Soft money says

Some say that soft money corrupts the democratic process, making the voices of special interests louder than the voice of the average voter. Others defend soft money; they claim that because it goes to parties and not to candidates, there is no room for corruption. The question remains: If a special interest continually provides large amounts to a political party, does that party act in favor of the special interest when in power?

Hard money says

Some believe that hard money violates fair elections, because only the wealthy are able to donate substantial amounts to candidates. This increases wealthy people’s access to government; as a group, their issues are more likely to get attention because they are supporting candidates.

We could all afford to donate something to the candidate of our choice, even if it’s just $5. But we don’t. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, only 2 percent of the voting-age population gave to a presidential or congressional candidate.

Since most people who donate to campaigns are wealthy, some argue that raising the hard-money limit to $2,000 increases the influence of the wealthy on elections, leaving the middle and low-income voters out.

Television ads

The BCRA also prevents corporations, unions, and special interests from funding campaign ads 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

McCain, Feingold, and their supporters believe that corporations and organizations should not have the power to put political ads all over the airwaves. In their opinion, this is just another form of soft money. The law does allow organizations to air ads if they are paid for by the contributions of individuals, however.

Money and speech

Groups that are against BCRA are paying special attention to the T.V. ad ban. They claim it is a violation of the First Amendment, our freedom of speech. Those who feel that BCRA amounts to censorship believe there to be a clear and direct connection between money and speech. They say that free speech is enabled by money, particularly in a campaign.

Others say there is a clear distinction between money and speech. They say that arguments that link spending limits with speech limits are abstract. They do not believe the BCRA violates the constitution; to the contrary, it protects the voice of the average citizen.

Should the government be regulating campaign finance?

Justice Antonin Scalia expressed doubts in the government’s authority to limit campaign finances.

Nevertheless, the government has been intervening in campaign spending and donating for almost 100 years.

Most Americans agree that reform needs to happen. But we disagree on whether the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act solves problems or creates them.

To learn more about campaign financing, click here. To discuss this issue with other WomenMatter readers, join our online forum. To let your representatives know what you think, click here.

Article Posted on: 9/25/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top