Soft Money Could Return In a Big Way, Experts Say
Democrats Would Benefit If Court Ruling Stands
By Jim VandeHei and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 4, 2003; Page A04
Here comes the money!
If the new federal court ruling on campaign finance laws stands, corporations, union leaders and wealthy Americans will pour millions of dollars back into a political system that could look and operate much as it did before Congress "reformed" it with great fanfare a year ago, according to election law experts and political operatives from both parties.
A special three-judge panel on Friday rejected, as unconstitutional, a new ban on unlimited contributions -- known as soft money -- to national political parties. The panel did, however, prohibit political parties and outside groups from spending such money on commercials that appear to advocate a candidate's election or defeat.
The net result: Soft money could soon be back with a vengeance, even if it is used for purposes other than attack ads -- unless the Supreme Court rules differently when it reviews the case later this year.
Indeed, the high court may pay little attention to Friday's ruling when it ultimately decides how political parties, candidates and special interest groups can raise and spend money for the 2004 elections and beyond. The McCain-Feingold campaign law -- which was challenged as soon as it took effect in November -- requires the Supreme Court to review the panel's ruling and decide whether any parts of the law violate free speech or other constitutional rights,
Legal experts are divided on how soon the nine justices might hear the case. Despite a full calendar, the court conceivably could squeeze in a hearing soon and issue a ruling this summer. More likely, it will conduct a fall hearing and render a verdict when the 2004 presidential and congressional elections are in full swing.
If the court passes on a quick decision or declines to issue a stay, the three-judge ruling would represent the law of the political land, perhaps for the entire election cycle. The ruling would usher soft money back into the system; slap new restrictions on the type of ads that political parties and interest groups could air using soft money; and double the "hard money" contribution limit of individuals. Both sides are spinning the ruling as a victory, but many legal and political experts said it significantly undercuts the McCain-Feingold law, named for its Senate sponsors, John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).
"A very substantial case can be made this is a significant blow" to campaign finance reform, said Bob Bauer, the top election lawyer for House and Senate Democrats. Bauer said the ruling "guts" the soft money ban and appears to allow political parties to, once again, run ads as long as they do not mention a specific candidate.
For instance, Democrats could write ads criticizing "Republicans for their failed tax policy," and air them in strongly contested states and congressional districts, Bauer said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), an early co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, called the ruling a "major disappointment."
Unlike hard money, soft money cannot be raised and spent directly by a candidate for president or Congress. Under Friday's ruling, the national parties could again raise soft money and spend it on party-building efforts, such as phone banks.
While limiting the types of ads that soft money would be able to buy, the three-judge panel struck down a provision barring "issue ads" in the weeks before a federal election. Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a leading Republican election lawyer, said this opens the door "for special interests using unlimited soft dollars to run substantial issue-ad campaigns."
Under the panel's ruling, corporations, labor unions, special interest groups and wealthy individuals could ingratiate themselves to a president and lawmakers by cutting six- and seven-figure soft-money checks to the political parties. In 2002, Democrats raised $246 million in soft money, Republicans $250 million.
Ginsberg said the ruling may prevent congressional campaign committees from raising soft money because it bars lawmakers from soliciting such money, but the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee are free to roam on familiar terrain.
To most voters and many candidates, the 2004 elections would look and sound much like past campaigns. Large sums could be spent on political ads, many of them negative and accusatory, while mysterious groups with friendly sounding names would continue to pop up, take shots at candidates from both parties and confuse voters with hard-hitting ads, the experts said.
Ironically, while the McCain-Feingold law was designed to limit the influence of money on the political system, the court ruling would open the flood gate to much more cash. The main reason: The new law doubles to $2,000 the amount individuals can give to candidates.
Although Democrats pushed hardest for the reforms, many are cheering the loudest after Friday's ruling. "We acknowledged that we started from behind in the hard-money chase . . . this will give us in part an equalizer," said a top Democratic strategist.
The ruling has no immediate effect on the Democrats now seeking the presidential nomination, because they are focused on rounding up hard-money contributions. But once a nominee is selected, many Democrats see soft money as a potential savior.
With so many Democrats fighting for the nomination, the party's eventual nominee will start the general election campaign at an enormous financial disadvantage to President Bush. In all likelihood, while Bush rakes in about a quarter-billion dollars, the Democratic nominee will be forced to accept public financing, which would limit his or her spending to about $43 million before the August 2004 convention. The reason: There are too few Democratic donors willing and able to give $2,000 to a candidate.
But Democrats have labor unions, trial lawyers and Hollywood figures who can cut checks for $1 million or more, so long as the soft money ban is lifted. That's why many Democrats would welcome soft money's return. "For the eventual nominee, it's a very big deal because the national committee will have soft money at its disposal for field operations and [voter] turnout," said Jim Jordan, campaign manager for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).
To be sure, the new rules will test lawyers' creativity. With political parties prohibited from running ads advocating a candidate's election or defeat, Republicans and Democrats will likely turn to broader, partywide messages that pack a punch. They could use the remaining soft money for get-out-the-vote efforts and other activities, freeing up precious hard money for hard-hitting ads.
Although most politicians will wait to see if the Supreme Court acts, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said he will begin raising soft money immediately. One top GOP strategist said other officials will "line up" big donations but will not demand the checks until the nine justices send a signal.
Staff writers David S. Broder and Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report. |
