Use Of Soft Money In Federal Elections example essay topic

Soft Money: It's Elimination from Governmental Campaigns The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission's laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections. In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election.

In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called "soft money" which is used to fund candidates' elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission's laws on federal elections.

In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for "Party Building" purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money (Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for "Party Building" purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors.

The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.

Joseph E. Seagram and Sons stayed off public hearings on their airing of TV and radio liquor ads, because their big contributions bought them 'protection (Soft Money). ' The Oil production industry battled the Senate to prevent new laws which would end the low royalties it pays for drilling on public property (Drilling). To fight this battle they contributed a total of $26 million dollars to the Republican Party, who doesn't favor the Senate on the drilling bill (Drilling). It is examples such as this that show precise reasons why soft money should be eliminated. In December 1998, Money magazine estimated that the federal government spends $48 billion dollars a year on unnecessary special interest issues (Political Parties). A large sum considering the issues are "unnecessary".

This just goes to show the American public that large groups with money can sway federal elections through campaign contributions. If any American is wondering weather the problem of soft money is getting any better, the answer is, it's not. While not really exploited until 1988, the use of soft money has literally exploded in the past few elections. In 1992, soft money contributions totaled $86 million dollars, and then jumped to $101 million in 1996 (Campaign Finance).

According to figures released by the Federal Election Commission, the Republican Party and its campaign committees raised $86.4 million in soft money between January 1, 1999 and March 31st, 2000. That's a staggering 93 percent increase over the same period in the 1995-1996 election cycle. Democrats did almost as well, raising $77 million for its party committees, about 94 percent above the 1995-1996 figures. This total up to $163.4 million dollars in soft money raised for the 2000 Presidential Election (Political Parties).

This simply shows the startling increase in soft money contributions. Former DNC fundraiser Johnny Chung said about the business of campaigns that 'the White House is like a subway - you have to put in coins to open the gates. (Political Parties) ' Funding through soft money is turning into a perpetual campaign practice that has begun to dominate Federal Elections. In fact, it has become a debate of not who practices these means of funding, but a debate of who gets more from it. Democrats argue that Republicans have long been the main beneficiaries of soft money, pointing to Republicans' efforts to stop legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain and Russ Feingold that would have banned it (Political Parties). Even while both parties sling mud at each other, the money is still pouring in.

The most recent "soft money campaigns" have been a $21 million dollar Republican party in April 2001 and a barbecue for the Democratic National Committee in September 2001 that raised $26 million dollars (Political Parties). While congress has showed some attempts to ban soft money, little has worked. One such bill, the McCain-Feingold bill would ban the unregulated donations made by individuals, corporations and other organizations to the major parties (House Members). However, this bill has been "kicked around" congress for nearly three years and all that continues is a heated debate between the democrats and the republicans.

Politicians and their parties have found this "open door" to easy funding and now it is truly being exploited. The resolution to this quite serious problem has been found, however after three years of heated debate in congress, it still hasn't passed. This solution is the McCain-Feingold bill, which would virtually eliminate soft money from federal elections. Senator McCain of Arizona used his "reform of federal election financing system" to back his presidential campaign in the 2000 election (House Members). The Senate approved this bill on April 2, 2001.

While this may sound as if a solution has been found, it hasn't. Shortly after the bill passed by only 10 votes, an assortment of lawmakers assembled in the House of Representatives, and cited McCain and Feingold as inspirations, and declared before reporters that they were ready to go to war over a cause they believe is just (House Members). This shows that while this bill has passed, it could easily be reformed. In fact McCain said, 'It's very simple, if we go to conference, we are allowing the opponents of campaign finance to write the bill. (House Members) ' Obviously not wanting to see his bill reformed McCain clearly opposed the re-writing of the bill, currently being considered by the Senate. Another solution is also in the making.

A group of campaign reformist called "Common Cause", is fighting for a complete reform of federal campaign spending. It uses these three points as a basis for it's reform: o "The national political parties and their congressional campaign committees should be prohibited from soliciting or receiving any money that does not comply with federal law. o Federal candidates and officeholders should be prohibited from raising, soliciting or directing any money that does not comply with federal law. o State parties should be required to spend only money permitted under federal law on any federal election activities. (Soft Money) " This group has had little success, most likely because they offer an extreme view of this reform. They wish for a completely government regulated financing program for federal elections.

The McCain-Feingold bill allows for some leeway of hard money contributions, while still banning the use of soft money. The use of soft money in Federal Elections gives candidates with the right connections and the right sources of money the ability to win by putting on enormous campaigns. If this practice of funding was banned from elections, it would allow candidates to have even margins for campaigning, thus allowing the Federal Election System to be an even battle. Patrick Mellitus History I IMr. Ferry

Bibliography

Campaign finance reform. The Pew Charitable Trusts. 15 October 2001.
web Drilling for Bargains. November 2000.
Common Cause. 15 October 2001.
web members prepare for campaign reform battle. 3 April 2001.
CNN. 15 October 2001.
web parties break soft money fun-raising records. 6 June 2000.
web Money: What is it and Why is it a Problem? November 2000.