By the late 1990s, soft money – the unregulated, unlimited donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals to political parties – had become the conduit through which wealthy individuals, labor unions, and corporations were able to evade campaign contribution limits, as well as the ban on direct corporate and union contributions. The problem with soft money was painfully evident during a series of hearings in 1997 before the Committee on Governmental Affairs. We heard from individual after individual who testified about giving hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to buy access. One gave $325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of the United States. Another was the infamous Roger Tamraz, who testified that the $300,000 he donated to gain access to the White House was not enough; next time he was prepared to double his contribution.
According to the Congressional Research Service, soft money donations nearly doubled during the last Presidential election cycle, from $262 million in 1996 to $488 million in the year 2000. Other estimates set the explosion in soft money donations at even higher levels. At the same time, old-fashioned "hard money" donations – the limited and regulated direct gifts to candidates' campaigns – grew by only about 10 percent. The previous campaign finance law that had been on the books since 1971, while in many respects serving our country well, had been swallowed up in its own loopholes. Without some correction, soft money threatened to swamp our campaign finance system.
That is why the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed by Congress last year is so important, and why I was proud to be its third Republican sponsor when I joined the Senate in 1997.
In addition to banning soft money, the bill includes an amendment that I offered along with Senator Wyden that raises the level of discourse in campaign ads. Our amendment requires that candidates be clearly identified when they or their authorized committees air negative advertising. When a candidate launches an ad that refers directly to an opponent, whether it is a high-minded discussion of policy differences or a vicious attack on an opponent's character, the candidate is now required to stand by his ad and not hide behind a committee that may not include the name of the candidate. Our measure requires the candidate to clearly identify himself or herself as the sponsor of the ad, putting an end to disingenuous stealth attack ads.
President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act into law shortly after Congress passed it, but court challenges remained, even as the legislation was provisionally put into effect. I was especially pleased, therefore, with the Supreme Court's recent decision upholding key features of this landmark legislation. It was a long battle, but I am pleased the Supreme Court upheld the soft money ban included in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. As a very early supporter of this much-needed reform, I worked hard throughout my entire first term in the Senate to see it enacted into law. The Supreme Court ruling will go a long way toward building an electoral system that encourages more citizens to run for office and more individuals to get involved in the political process.
Soft money allowed well-heeled, outside interests to exert far too much influence over elections for far too long. It was a loophole in desperate need of closing. Unregulated soft money contributions led to more negative television ads, lowered the level of political discourse, and made candidates less accountable for their campaigns. Eliminating soft money will let candidates focus more on the things that should really matter in a campaign – like issues and ideas. I am hopeful that the new reform law will strengthen the integrity of the electoral process, opening the doors to public office to many more citizens and ensuring that all Americans have an equal political voice.