Campaign finance

Campaign finance

Soft money should be capped, if not altogether eliminated

Mar. 29, 2001

In the next week or so, big money — really big money — could be eliminated from the political process in this country. We hope it is.

Right now there are no limits on the amount of corporate, union and individual contributions to political parties, the so-called soft money that has become so integral to election time campaigning. It is money that is sometimes is spent on efforts that we all approve of, such as encouraging voter registration and election day turnout; that’s what it was designed to do. But far more often it’s spent on the short sound bites of attack advertising, with no indication who is pulling the trigger. In contributions of $100,000 and more, it’s distorting the political process.

Soft money ought to be eliminated, or at least capped. And even some Republicans, the party that’s most likely to defend election fund-raising and spending as akin to apple pie and wrapped in the First Amendment, are beginning to get on board. The outcry from Americans, appalled at clear evidence that big contributions return access and attention, is being heard in Congress. For example, recent reports show that the common denominator for individuals wanting ambassadorships is money. Almost without exception, those in the running for appointment raised a lot for the president’s election campaign.

To some extent, Republicans see reducing soft money contributions as being in their party’s best interest. It is the Democratic Party that benefits most from soft money, supported by certain sectors, such as the entertainment industry and unions. Republicans have done a much better job of soliciting contributions from individuals, the "hard money" that’s now limited to $1,000 per person.

That hard-money cap was set a couple decades ago; it should be increased, and $2,500 or $3,000 is being talked about. That’s fine with us.

So too, should candidates who find themselves challenged by an especially wealthy individual be aided. Their fundraising should be made easier.

But soft money needs to be severely reduced to return some integrity to the campaign process.

Even if it is, the power of money can’t be ignored. Look for the entrepreneurial spirit that is so alive in this country to find another way to fund elections.

But in the meantime, if Congress steps up to approve legislation in the spirit of the what senators John McCain and Russ Feingold have worked on for so long, the political process in the this country will be substantially less tainted. George Bush’s presidency would be off to a significant start with his support for campaign finance reform. The president has reversed his pre-election stance on other issues; he is hearing from Americans, and he should do the same on soft money.