The Supreme Court passed a ruling Wednesday that changes the emphasis and character of money in politics by upholding a law that bans national political parties from raising large amounts of unregulated “soft money.”
Justices voted five to four to uphold most provisions of the McCain-Feingold law, which passed in 2002. They said the law’s ban on soft-money donations does not violate the Constitution’s First Amendment right of free speech, as its opponents argued.
It also upheld the law’s ban on the solicitation of soft money by federal candidates and its prohibition against political issue advertisements that are sponsored by unidentified special-interest groups and released just weeks before an election.
“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 nor implausible,” the court wrote in its decision.
After years of debate, the Supreme Court’s ruling now means that candidates will have to comply with the fund-raising rules laid out in 2002.
“This law won’t fix every problem in our campaign-finance system, but it is a big step in the right direction,” Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., one of the authors of the law, said. “Campaign-finance reform will eliminate billions of special-interest dollars from the political process, giving people back their voice — and hopefully their trust — in government. It is long overdue.”
The debate over campaign money has been active for decades. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that limits on contributions were legal, but limits on spending were not. This interpretation triggered politicians and their fund-raisers to think of new, creative ways to raise money above and beyond the limits and their candidates.
These funds generally became known as “soft money.” These contributions from corporations, labor unions and other powerful interest groups were intended for party activities and other civic-minded endeavors, but they were really backed by benefits from certain candidates.
In 1996 a Senate committee investigated these campaign activities and found excessive abuse by both Democrats and Republicans, which prompted the McCain-Feingold law that President Bush signed in 2002 and praised as generally helpful.
“It’s changed the landscape fundamentally,” University of Wisconsin political science professor Ken Mayer said, adding that close to $1 billion spent on campaigns over the last decade was from soft money.
Proponents of the law argue that soft money has corrupted American politics, and the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday elated the law’s authors.
“This opinion represents a landmark victory for the American people in the effort to reform their political system. Now that the Court has spoken, we must make sure that the law is properly interpreted and enforced,” Feingold and his co-authors Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Marty Meehan, D-Mass., said in a joint statement.
Mayer added he was surprised that the court upheld the law.
“This is a landmark ruling,” Mayer said. “It will fundamentally reshape elections and how subsequent courts interpret the First Amendment.”
Mayer noted that the ruling is a “very important decision.” It directly applies to candidates for federal office and will potentially trickle down to the state and local levels as well.
Some people, however, are disappointed with the potential outcomes of the law through this decision.
“I disagree with it because I always considered this a thing of free speech,” UW junior Drew Fasseas said. “I always thought soft money was a good tool … to make elections equal. I think it will have a negative effect on the fairness of the election. It will make media decide elections instead of the people.”
Among other provisions in exchange for the soft-money ban, the law raises the limits on the more strictly regulated contributions, known as “hard money.” This condition puts a limit of $2,000 per election for each federal candidate, up from the previous limit of $1,000.
