FREE ESSAY ON SOFT MONEY

SOFT MONEY

"Whether the issue is consumer privacy, a Patients' Bill of Rights, environmental
pollution, or a prescription drug benefit for older Americans, soft money donors will get
their opinions heard on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Soft money is drowning out
the voices of average Americans -- it is time to put an end to the corrupt soft money
system"
Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger
At the basis of the campaign finance reform movement is the belief that everyone should
have an equal say in the government, and that wealthy individuals or special interest
groups should not be able to manipulate the system through excessive contributions to
unduly influence elections. The more expensive it becomes to finance a campaign, the more
important the money becomes, and subsequently the less involved the candidate becomes in
listening to the "voices of the average Americans." The Federal Election Commission,
established in 1974, was the first independent institution created to monitor and enforce
the campaign finance reforms that were designed to limit [individual or corporate]
contributions that would disproportionately influence a federal election. The Commission
also tries to ensure that the campaign finance information is accessible to the public,
because "disclosure…is the single greatest check on the excesses of campaign
finance," (Sabato). 
Soft money, by definition, are the 'non federal' funds which are raised, and spent,
outside of Federal Election Campaign Act's borders. Campaign finance reform evolved in
order to restrict and regulate the campaign funds, but the soft money loophole allows
committees to establish a separate bank account for 'nonfederal' activities, which is not
monitored by FECA. Critics argue that the soft money system allows committees to save the
federal funds that can be spent on federal elections, and that the system only furthers
the influence of wealthy contributors on elections. On the other hand, others claim that
federal regulation of soft money is "an unwarranted intrusion into the financing of
non-federal elections" and fear that complex regulations will have "a chilling effect on
grassroots electoral activity" (FEC). 
Since the 1980's, critics of the soft money system have strived to close the perceived
loophole. In 1984, Common Cause petitioned the Commission for stricter rules regarding
soft money allocation, hoping to close the loophole. When the Commission concluded that
the evidence of soft money abuse was insufficient to rationalize the suggested changes,
Common Cause filed a suit that led to a Court order for the FEC to clarify its allocation
regulations. In 1990 the Commission approved of new regulations that would require all
national party committees to provide full disclosure of the soft money accounts, and all
committees (with federal and non federal accounts) to use specific formulas to "determine
the amount of federal funds required to be spent for any activity that benefits both
federal and non federal candidates" (FEC). 
While the Commission maintains that they have proceeded "as far as statutory authority
would permit, short of barring the combined use of federal and nonfederal fund
altogether" (FEC), others maintain that soft money is exactly what policy makers have
intended to exclude from national elections since the early 1900's. In 1907, the Tillman
Act was enacted to prohibit national banks and corporations from donating money to
political campaigns. The campaign finance reform laws from the 1907 Tillman Act to the
1947 Taft-Hartley Act have tried to control and limit campaign spending and funding, in
effort so that special interest groups and wealthy individuals would not be able to use
excessive contributions to influence federal elections. According to the Common Cause
glossary, "Soft money is money that is illegal under federal law -- it either violates
federal source restrictions (such as money from corporations) or federal limits (such as
large contributions from individuals in amounts often exceeding $100,000).
Soft money undoubtedly influences our government. National party committees are allowed
to use the soft money funds for voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote campaigns,
but these ads can easily be manipulated to influence presidential elections. Common Cause
charges that "soft money contributions are laundered through the political parties in a
way that allows federally illegal money to nonetheless be used to influence federal
elections." While corporations make large [soft money] donations to political parties,
they are also lobbying for various legislation issues before Congress.