The Political Process after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

Abstract

47 POLITICAL FINANCE REFORMS are not neutral. Instead, they are used as instruments to achieve political goals. They change political institutions and processes, sometimes in unforeseen, and not always salutary, ways. Their consequences are often unintended, but even when intended, may have unexpected impact. In the case of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),1 its provisions were put forth in ways that will seriously curtail the political parties while enabling interest groups to continue their soft-money issue advertising at times not blacked out for the crucial thirty days before a primary and sixty days before a general election; in addition, these interest groups can use hard money under political action committee regulations during the blackout periods for independent expenditures. Although 45 percent of party soft money at the state level—where most of it was spent in the 2000 elections—went to issue advertising mainly on television and radio, the remaining 55 percent of such soft money, related to partyoriented activities: registration and get-out-the vote drives, direct mail, bumper strips, telephone banks, administration and fund raising.2 Thus the legislation directed against soft money and issue advertising will have the side effect of curtailing voter-related activities, the prime purposes of which can be summed up as party-building efforts. And the main purposes of party-building activities are to work toward the American ideals of increasing levels of voting, and encouraging volunteer citizen participation in the political arena. Although it is not fashionable to say so these days, volunteer citizen participation includes the freedom to contribute money to favored candidates and party and political committees, and to help raise the money necessary to the smooth functioning of the political system. Because the BCRA seeks to control soft money at the state and local levels as well as at the federal, it has the effect of federalizing state parties and state-level campaigns. In the effort to control soft money that might affect federal campaigns, the federal law contains far-reaching language that impinges on state party committees. United States parties have traditionally been confederations, with much state autonomy. The BCRA reverses course, by wiping out gains in recent years—brought about by soft money relationships—toward national, state, and local party cooperation. Now all splintering tendencies will be magnified and cooperative actions curtailed. The BCRA even regulates generic campaigning urging voters to vote Republican or Democratic if the message refers to a federal candidate. The new law regulates even registration and get-out-the vote campaigns if they refer to federal candidates. It limits to $10,000 per individual source of soft money funding for generic activities, if permissible under state law, and the money cannot be raised or spent jointly in two or more states, or be transferred to another state.