*EPF413 12/11/2003
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Unlimited Election Campaign Contributions
(Regulations will affect 2004 election) (750)

By Alexandra M. Abboud and Darlisa Y. Crawford
Washington File Staff Writers

Washington -- In a landmark decision December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld congressional restrictions passed in 2002 on contributions to political campaigns known as "soft money," as well as political advertising by special-interest groups during the election season.

According to the ruling, the question that the Supreme Court examined was whether the large soft money contributions to national party committees have a corrupting influence on elections or result in the appearance of corruption.

In a 5-to-4 decision, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens were joined by David H. Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in ruling that, "the prevention of corruption or its appearance constitutes a sufficiently important interest to justify political contribution limits."

The decision also said, "the idea that large contributions to a national party can corrupt or create the appearance of corruption of federal candidates and officeholders is neither novel or implausible." Continuing in that vein, the decision said, "both common sense and the ample record in these cases confirm Congress' belief that they do."

On the issue of political advertisements, the justices ruled that "electioneering communications," that is, television and radio ads not specifically about a candidate that typically air directly before a primary or general election, cannot be paid for with soft money, but rather only with contributions that are regulated by federal campaign finance laws. Although television and radio ads "do not urge the viewer to vote for or against a candidate in so many words, they are no less clearly intended to influence the election," the court said.

Because of the 2002 congressional restrictions, "the national political parties in all likelihood will have less money, less revenues to pay for their political activities in this election cycle," said Jan Baran, a lawyer and campaign finance law expert who spoke at the State Department's Foreign Press Center in Washington shortly after the court's decision was announced.

Even though the political parties have raised more permissible funds in the last year than they did in the 2000 election cycle, the increase in funding is not even close to the amount that will be lost as a result of the new restrictions on soft money, he said.

According to Baran, soft money contributions totaled approximately $500 million in the 2000 election, an amount that was distributed equally among Democrats and Republicans.

Soft money is a term used to describe contributions made to political parties by individuals, corporations, unions and other entities that, prior to passage of the congressional restrictions in March 2002, were not subject to federal contribution limits because the contributions were given to political parties, rather than the candidates running for national office. But many viewed soft money as a loophole that effectively allowed unlimited contributions to candidates running in nationwide elections.

The ruling leaves in place, with some changes, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold law, named after the two chief Senate sponsors, John McCain, Republican from Arizona, and Russell Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin. This sponsors sought to remove soft money as an influence on candidates running for national office.

The case before the Supreme Court, McConnell v. Federal Election Committee, arose from a challenge to McCain-Feingold initiated shortly after the legislation was passed. Kentucky Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, along with several others, filed a suit against the Federal Election Committee claiming that the law put unconstitutional limits on political free speech.

In his dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with opponents of the bill, saying, "a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights."

However, the majority of the justices disagreed, saying that the courts fear that "officeholders will decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder," and that "unlike straight cash-for-votes transactions, such corruption is neither easily detected nor practical to criminalize. The best means of prevention is to identify and to remove the temptation."

Noting that the decision will certainly not end the debate over campaign finance reform, the majority ruling said "Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise and how Congress will respond are concerns for another day."

(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents