WASHINGTON, 21 June — Republicans yesterday celebrated a federal judge’s ruling that “soft money” contributions to political parties are a constitutional right.
The ruling staggered supporters of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill.
Republicans called the decision a “harbinger,” or forerunner, of what the Supreme Court would do if the McCain bill ever became law.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was introduced by Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), and Russ Feingold, (D-Wisconsin), in 1999, after failing to win passage in previous Congresses.
The provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill include a ban on soft money, tougher regulation of “issue advocacy” ads, strengthening of disclosure requirements, and a ban on “coordinated” campaign spending (by local and state parties) for candidates who refuse to agree to voluntary spending limits.
The ruling against the McCain-Feingold regulation bill was made in Alaska, and went largely unreported in the national press.
US District Judge James Singleton struck down a part of the state’s 1997 campaign contributions law that blocked businesses and labor unions from donating money to political parties.
He let stand the state law’s ban on business and union contributions to individual candidates.
Supporters of the bill said they are unfazed by the court’s decision.
“We’ll be examining this ruling,” said McCain spokeswoman Nancy Ives. “But the vast majority of constitutional experts agree that we can ban soft money.”
Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Connecticut, and co-sponsor of the House version of McCain-Feingold, said: “It’s not uncommon for a federal district judge to be overturned (by a higher court), and I would think in this case he would be overturned.
There are a number of cases that have affirmed the kind of ban this judge ruled against.”
Regulation opponents expressed greater optimism regarding the ruling:
“This decision reaffirms that the campaign finance regulators’ legislation has a terrible track record with the federal judiciary,” Michael Toner, the Republican National Committee’s chief legal counsel told journalists.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that federal limits on political parties’ expenditures made to help individual federal candidates, violate the First Amendment when that spending is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
The soft money reform bill is clearly divided between the two parties. Most Democrats publicly support the McCain-Feingold restrictions on contributions and political advertising in federal elections, but most Republicans oppose the legislation.
The reason is not hard to understand. Opponents say the biggest loophole US campaign finance law is “soft money.” Federal law has prohibited corporations from contributing to federal candidates since 1907.
Labor unions have been barred from contributing to candidates since 1943. In addition, the post-Watergate campaign finance law caps individual contributions at $25,000 per calendar year, and permits individuals to give no more than $20,000 to a national party, $5,000 to a political action committee (PAC), and $2,000 to a candidate. (Contributions of up to $1,000 each for primary and general elections are permitted.)
The soft money loophole provides corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals — all of whom tend to favor the Republican Party — with a way around the limits. Soft money opponents say contributions of five, ten, or even 100 times the legal limit on direct individual contributions are given regularly to both parties.
The financial demands on candidates seeking office, meanwhile, have grown steadily and the impact of money on election outcomes increased.
According to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, during the 1996 election cycle, candidates in the House of Representatives who raised the most money won 92 percent of the time; in the Senate, 88 percent won.
Given such a direct correlation between campaign spending and electoral success, supporters of the bill say it is less than surprising that illegal fundraising scandals have plagued both parties.
In addition, a majority of American voters polled on the issue say they believe that major changes should be made in the way election campaigns are financed.
