 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court maintains ban on 'Soft Money' WASHINGTON - December 10, 2004 - The Supreme Court upheld key features the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act of 2002, aimed at lessening the influence of money in politics. The court in a 5-4 split decision ruled that the government may ban unlimited donations, to political parties. The justices rejected as "unpersuasive" arguments that the new provisions intrude on constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free political association. They similarly rejected claims that the soft money restrictions cut too deeply into the prerogatives of the states to regulate elections. The court also voted 5-4 to uphold restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates. Those donations, called ``soft money'' and totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads. The justices struck down only two provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act -- a ban on political contributions from those too young to vote and a limitation on some party spending that is independent of a particular candidate. At the same time, the court said the 2002 law will not stop the flow of campaign cash. ``We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day,'' Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., a co-author of the law, called the decision a ``major victory for American democracy.'' He acknowledged the law won't stop all forms of abuse in the system, but it ends the era when ``special interest groups could control the national political parties and underwrite federal campaigns by writing unlimited checks.'' The law hasn't stopped the flow of big money, but it has changed its course. In the months since the law took effect, several partisan interest groups have popped up to collect corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to try to influence next year's elections, including several on the Democratic side focused on the presidential race. Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system. ``Soft money'' is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations. Federal election regulators had allowed soft money donations outside those restrictions so long as the money went to pay for get-out-the-vote activities and other party building programs run by the political parties. Soft money allowed the three national Democratic Party committees to match their GOP rivals nearly dollar-for-dollar on get-out-the-vote and issue ad resources in the 2002 election. The Democratic committees raised about $246 million in soft money in the last election cycle, compared with $250 million for the Republicans. Supporters of the new law said that in practice, soft money was funneled to influence specific races for the House, Senate or the White House, and that donors, parties and candidates all knew it. The majority's ruling bars candidates for federal office, including incumbent members of Congress or an incumbent president, from raising soft money. The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money, and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money. Without soft money, politicians and political parties may only take in donations that are already allowed in limited amounts, such as a private individual's small re-election donation to his or her local member of Congress. That means no more huge checks from wealthy donors, and no contributions from the treasuries of corporations or labor unions. The Supreme Court's 300-page ruling on the 2002 campaign finance overhaul settles legal and constitutional challenges from both the political right and the left. Although the reform effort was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, many politicians and others in the business of politics were leery of it. A lower court panel of federal judges had issued its own, fractured ruling on the new law earlier this year, but the Supreme Court got the last word. The new rules have been in force during the early stages of preparation for the 2004 elections for president and Congress. A lower court panel of federal judges had issued its own, fractured ruling on the new law earlier this year, but the Supreme Court got the last word. The two parties hauled in nearly $500 million in soft money in the two-year election cycle that ended in 2000, most of it from large corporations, labor unions and a relative handful of wealthy individuals. (Compiled from media reports) |