Get rid of soft money

By Nancy Kassebaum Baker & Walter F. Mondale

In 1996, our already weak system of federal campaign finance regulation finally collapsed. Both the Democratic and Republican parties raised unprecedented amounts of cash, including contributions of $50,000, $100,000, or even more, from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals. These enormous gifts of "soft money," money given outside of the bounds of federal election law, have become the subject of congressional and other investigations. They have also inspired efforts for overdue reform of our campaign finance laws.

We believe that the influence of big money in politics can--and must--be controlled. And we are convinced that Congress should act now without further delay.

This summer, former Presidents Bush, Carter and Ford called upon Congress to begin promptly the task of reform, starting with an end to these huge "soft money" contributions. They also urged the complete and rapid public disclosure of political contributions and expenditures, as well as independent and effective enforcement of campaign finance laws.

Federal law places strict limits on the money parties may raise for presidential and congressional elections. These limits come from a long tradition of reform seeking to protect the integrity of our national government from the corrupting influence of money. Corporate contributions to federal campaigns were first banned at the beginning of the century. The ban was extended to union contributions during World War II. Following the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s, Congress added limits on federal election contributions by individuals

These restraints are still on the books. But they seem to have become works of fiction, as loopholes have permitted big money to flow once again into our political process. Like cracks in dikes, the first exceptions to limits on "hard money"--funds raised or spent expressly to campaign for particular candidates--were small, paying for general activities like getting out the vote. By 1996 the "soft money" exception had devoured the system, contributing to a media war between the parties that pretended to be educational about general "issues," but in truth was about the forthcoming election. All told, the national parties used the "soft money" loophole to raise and spend a record-smashing quarter of a billion dollars for the 1996 elections.

While the numbers of dollars going into politics have increased dramatically, the percentage of Americans going into the voting booth has declined sharply--1996 being the lowest turnout for a presidential election in 70 years. This trend may have multiple causes, but the coincidence is disturbing.

The Supreme Court has upheld the power of Congress to bar corporate and union contributions, and limit individual contributions, to avoid corruption or the appearance of it. When these restraints are flicked aside in the money rush, it is not surprising if citizens lose confidence that their small contributions, and even votes, count for very much. A "soft money" ban is needed to reaffirm that votes, not dollars, are the true underpinning of our democracy. A "soft money" ban will not remedy all abuses. Lots of cash spent in the last election did not even show up as campaign contributions. In the weeks before the election, groups with obscure names paid for media blitzes that wrapped candidate attacks or endorsements in the disguise of "issue advocacy" discussions. These groups were not required to disclose their funding sources prior to the election, nor were they subject to contribution limits.

We have joined others in urging that Congress amend the campaign finance law to keep pace with new campaign techniques. All election participants--candidates and independent groups alike--should play by comparable rules and in the sunshine of public view.

Other proposed changes merit debate in Congress this fall. But as important as additional reforms may be, disagreement about them should not delay a vote this year to close down the corrosive "soft money" system.

Because complete reform is not likely to occur all at once, we will continue to face challenges that define our democracy for years to come. Our candidates are overwhelmed by the demands of fund-raising. Those who already hold office spend decreasing time on public responsibilities as they spend increasing time on fund-raising. Campaign costs are driven in large part by the media costs of reaching out to a nation whose citizens long ago ceased to debate politics in village halls and no longer read newspapers as they used to do.

Money in politics is a matter of concern for university and college communities. In responding to the challenges ahead, answers that give vitality to our constitutional traditions and renew public trust in government will be indispensable to our democracy. They will come sooner if illuminated by study in centers of scholarship. They will also require the persistent efforts of a new generation of voters who are determined to insist on the integrity of their government and its electoral process.

Nancy Kassebaum Baker is a former Republican senator from Kansas. Walter F. Mondale is a former Democratic vice president and senator from Minnesota, and also a former ambassador to Japan. This article has been contributed as part of a national effort to reform campaign finances.

Graphic by Kay Tidwell.

Back to Opinion...