Political Parties Under the Post-McConnell Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Abstract

177 THIS ARTICLE considers some implications for the political system of the federal soft money ban passed by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC (124 S. Ct. 619 [2003]). Political scientists for several years have been debating whether and how a ban on soft money might hurt the political parties. These debates were reflected on the floor of Congress and in briefs filed with the courts in McConnell v. FEC. By upholding most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) the Supreme Court assured the debate would continue. But by overturning the law’s attempt to force parties to choose between independent and coordinated spending, and by suggesting that the legal path might not be completely clear for non-party political committees to accept soft money, the Court gave party optimists even more reason to be hopeful. This article argues that parties may well be able to raise and spend enough hard money to make up for the loss of soft money, and non-party groups may face significant obstacles to becoming major funding rivals to the parties. The analysis concludes with implications of the Court’s decision for presidential public funding and spending limits. To clear away some easy debater’s points, let us begin by acknowledging the obvious. The six major party national committees raised almost $500 million in soft money in 2001–2002. This was more than 40% of their total receipts. If they cannot replace what they lose, having less money is bound to hurt. With that out of the way we can get to more interesting questions: