Money & Politics News

1) Hard money will skyrocket. McCain-Feingold doubles the amount that the nation's wealthiest donors can give directly to candidates - allowing one big money contributor to legally give up to $95,000 in hard money each election cycle. Hard money raised by congressional campaigns has already ballooned by 425 percent since 1978 . After McCain-Feingold, the hard money raised by all candidates and parties in the 2004 election cycle will likely top the combined total of $2.5 billion in hard and soft money raised in the 2000 election cycle. In short, there will be more money spent after McCain-Feingold than ever before, only now politicians will claim that that this is OK since it's all hard money.

2) Soft money will not vanish. McCain-Feingold proponents claim that this dramatic increase in hard money is justified by a ban on soft money. We should first remember that soft money is just a small part of the problem, comprising only 17% of all money raised by federal candidates and parties in the last election cycle, up from 15% in the 1998 cycle and 13% in 1996. Even this relatively small slice of the problem won't go away under McCain-Feingold. Some current soft money will simply be converted into hard money using the higher hard money limits. Much-or perhaps most-of the soft money that currently goes to federal parties will go to state and local parties, to independent expenditures, and to non-party issue groups to use for electioneering-all of which is legal under McCain-Feingold.

3) President George W. Bush will become the first major party candidate to refuse to accept voluntary spending limits in the 2004 general election. In the 2000 primaries, Bush declined public financing and raised more than $113 million in private money, well over the $40 million voluntary spending limit for the primaries. Under the doubled contribution limits of McCain-Feingold and with the power of the White House behind him, one Republican campaign manager has predicted that Bush could easily raise $500 million in hard dollars. This is roughly the same amount of soft money that BOTH federal parties raised in the last election cycle. U.S. PIRG predicts that Bush will raise at least $300 million, enough to vastly outspend an opponent who sticks to the voluntary spending limits-set at $67 million in the last election. McCain-Feingold may jeopardize the future of the presidential public financing system.

4) Big donors will still buy election results to put their favored candidates in office. Candidates who raise the most hard money will continue to defeat their opponents more than 90% of the time.

5) The percentage of candidate funds coming from large individual donors will increase and contributions from ordinary citizens will matter less in the post McCain-Feingold world. Under McCain-Feingold, more than half of the money contributed to candidates by individuals will come from a fraction of one percent of the voting age population, in checks of $1000 or greater. Only 17% of total funds raised by winning congressional candidates came from contributions of $200 or less in the last election. This percentage will only decrease after McCain-Feingold.

6) It won't matter that we've "severed the link" between federal office holders and soft money donors. Business as usual will continue in Washington and the public will not experience noticeable changes in representation on major issues.

McCain-Feingold proponents are banking on the premise that if federal candidates do not ask for soft money, then big donors won't give it-and even if they do, it will be less corrupting. This is nonsense. Wealthy donors will continue to give both hard and soft money to influence election outcomes and plenty of surrogates will emerge to raise and spend this money. Politicians will continue to grant undue access and influence to those special interests that can unduly influence election outcomes even if there is no quid pro quo that accompanies a direct contribution to a federal candidate or party.

7) Candidates will not spend less time fundraising. Some politicians justified their desire to raise even more money from wealthy donors on the grounds that they would then be able to spend less time fundraising. We predict that candidates will simply raise more money, rather than spend less time raising it.

8) Politicians will move aggressively to increase contribution limits at the state level, claiming that this is now "reform." Politicians are always eager to increase the amount of money that they can personally raise from wealthy interests, and Senators McCain and Feingold have just given them the green light to do so. Georgia has already raised its limits in the name of reform, with the blessing of Common Cause.

9) Anti-reformers will seize upon McCain-Feingold's failure as proof that limits on money in politics just don't work. They'll be wrong. Congress could have passed a McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan bill that placed meaningful limits on money in politics, and the House has done so twice before. The fact that Congress chose not to do so this time does not mean that real limits can not be set on big money in politics.

10) Those who brought us this mess will claim that all these easily predictable results are simply unintended consequences. But they won't be able to say that nobody warned them. We challenge any McCain-Feingold proponent to dispute any of the above points.

-----------------

March 18, 2002

Senator Mitch McConnell
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Senator McConnell,

Although we do not share your views on campaign finance, we are writing to congratulate you on your impending victory in the Senate. While you may have lost this week's battle, it's clear that you've won the war on this issue and that the reform community has lost.

As the Senate moves towards passage of the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan proposal, Senators McCain and Feingold, and most reform groups are claiming victory at long last. However, historical perspective reveals you as the real winner.

You have shifted the debate so successfully over the past decade that these "reformers" are declaring victory by passing a bill that is much weaker than one you were once forced to support. You likely recall voting with Senator Dole in 1990 for a bill that banned soft money and lowered hard money limits for out of state contributions from $1,000 to $500. You did this because a much stronger proposal by Senator David Boren was on the table and, in the political climate of the day, you could not simply come out opposed to all reform.

How times have changed since the early 1990s. After a decade of hard work on this issue reformers have lost considerable ground by any objective standard. Thanks to your diligent opposition, the current McCain-Feingold bill is far weaker than either Senator Boren's aggressive proposal or Senator Dole's more modest countermeasure. This bill regulates-but does not ban-soft money.

Furthermore, you have won the large increases in hard money contribution limits that you have sought for years. Astonishingly, nearly all of the national reform groups and prominent media outlets have sanctioned the doubling of contribution limits in the name of reform. This alone will likely bring more money into politics than ever before. Surely, this would never have been possible without your constant efforts to shift the debate on this issue.

Finally, you have succeeded in providing your party's sitting president with a towering fundraising advantage heading into the 2004 campaign. As a candidate, President Bush broke records with his famous "Pioneer" program, where wealthy and well-connected individuals secured $1,000 contributions from 100 of their friends. With the $1,000 limit doubled, Mr. Bush will likely raise more than $300 million for his reelection campaign. This will enable him to become the first candidate to reject public financing for the general election and overwhelm any opponents.

We understand that you will oppose the measure this week in order to continue to move the bar on reform and to preserve your standing in future court challenges. However, as a worthy adversary over the years, we wanted to take note of your considerable achievements. Over the past decade, you have shifted the debate on campaign finance so significantly that the Senate is about to pass a bill that could increase money in politics with the full approval of much of the national press and most citizen reform groups. Although you'll take some lumps in the press this week, our hat goes off to your clever victory-one that few seem to recognize.

Sincerely,