WRITING IN THE JULY 31 issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, William Kristol and Jeffrey Bell argue that conservatives should drop their opposition to banning or severely limiting the political parties’ use of “soft money.” To compensate for the loss of soft money, Kristol and Bell advocate increasing the limits on “hard money.” (Soft money, not subject to limits under federal law, can be used for issue advocacy, voter turnout, party-building, and support of state and local candidates. Hard money can be used to expressly advocate the election or defeat of federal candidates.)
There are a number of problems with the Kristol-Bell proposal. Most hard money contributions to the parties are far below the current limit, so raising that limit would recapture few of the soft dollars lost to campaign finance “reform.” Moreover, hard money contributions from corporations are prohibited, so none of the corporate soft money funds lost could be recovered. Consequently, the parties would be starved for funds. This would disproportionately harm Republicans, because we are far more reliant than the Democrats on party committees. The Democrats would still have the labor unions’ assistance, funded with compulsory dues, in the form of telephone banks, manpower, membership communications, and television and radio ads. Republicans have no comparable ally.
Party soft money is not a zero-sum game. That is why Republican nominee George W. Bush insists that the Paycheck Protection Act, ensuring that no union worker is forced to subsidize partisan politics, be part of any campaign finance reform package. It also should not be forgotten that the parties are now a relatively small voice in the political landscape and must already struggle to be heard amid the din of media editorializing and private group expenditures independent of campaigns.
The media, unquestionably biased toward liberals and Democrats, have enormous influence on American politics. They largely determine what issues dominate the public agenda, champion favored candidates, and attack disfavored candidates. It is interesting to note, as acknowledgment of their value to campaigns, that newspapers, magazines, and broadcasters benefit from a special exemption from federal campaign finance restrictions (2 U.S.C. § 441 (b)). Otherwise, their editorials would be subject to government regulation and limits. These media contributions are predominately pro-Democrat. They would be even more influential if the Republican party were hampered by restrictions or a prohibition on soft money.
Kristol and Bell predicate their recommendation on three assumptions: (1) campaign finance reform is “popular with the public,” (2) soft money gives Democrats leverage over business, and (3) Democrats have become successful soft-money fund-raisers. The first two assumptions are false, and the third is irrelevant.
The truth is, campaign finance reform does not and has never registered with the public as an important national issue, despite twenty-five years of cheerleading for reform by the New York Times and the Washington Post. Were the public hungering for reform, John McCain and Bill Bradley would be squaring off for the presidency.
Reformers who agitate for the McCain-Feingold bill’s ban on party soft money do so because they believe that soft money gives business too much leverage over Democrats (and Republicans), not, as Kristol and Bell contend, vice versa. If soft money has made some Democrats more amenable to pro-business initiatives like free trade, bravo. Perhaps Americans should applaud. Conservatives should be thrilled.
The Democratic committees are presently raising more soft money than they used to. But Republicans still raise significantly more overall and rely on it far more than do the Democrats. Even if there were parity between the parties, prohibiting or severely limiting soft money would be a bad idea.
The national parties raise and spend a great deal of soft money to benefit their entire slate of candidates, including nominees for state and local offices. These soft money funds are raised in compliance with state laws. Thirty states allow corporate contributions. The national parties cannot be barred from raising soft money without overriding the states through a complete federal takeover of campaign finance. Such a federal takeover would entail a gargantuan enforcement apparatus, with the federal government policing political speech in all fifty states. Most conservatives recoil from such crazy, unconstitutional nonsense.
Conservative principles should not be tossed overboard in a misguided quest to appease liberal reformers and their media allies. The conservative and constitutional reform agenda calls for less regulation of political speech, not more: It consists of paycheck protection for workers, common-sense inflation adjustments of hard money limits so there will be less need for soft money, and expedited public disclosure on the Internet.
Leave soft money alone.
Mitch McConnell is chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
