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.

A New Campaign: Supreme Court Upholds Reform Act

On December 10, 2003, The Supreme Court upheld most of the new campaign finance laws passed by Congress in The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA).

The decision was 5-4, with David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and swing-vote Sandra Day O’Connor voting to uphold the reforms. Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist voted against them.

The ruling will not change the shape or feel of the current presidential campaigns, because all candidates have been conforming to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act since President Bush signed it into law last year.

What is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?

BCRA is otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold law, named after its authors John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI). Technically, BCRA is an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971. BCRA attempts to plug the FECA loopholes that have revealed themselves during the last few decades of campaigns.

BCRA is long, complex, and took six years to generate. But there are two main provisions that were upheld by the court:

1. The re-regulation of "soft money."
2. The ban on corporate, union, and special-interest sponsorship of televised campaign ads known as "issue ads" or "attack ads."

The quality of money

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

Under 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 organizations (always known to the opposition as "special interests"), like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or the Sierra Club. And while soft-money is important to the Republican Party as well, they receive a large number of contributions from individuals.

The BCRA increased the limit on hard-money. Now, an individual can donate $2,000, instead of the previous $1,000.

Soft money

Some say that soft money corrupts the democratic process, making the voices of particular 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 little room for corruption. The question remains: If a group, such as the pharmaceutical companies, continually provide large amounts to a political party, does that party act in favor of the group when in power? The court cited the industry in its majority opinion.

Hard money and all of us

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.

Individuals’ donations matter more now. And we could all afford to donate something to the candidate of our choice. WomenMatter wants 35 million women to each send at least $5. What a difference we would make. But most of us don’t. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, less than 2 percent of the voting-age population gave to a presidential or congressional candidate.