Soft Money Dies Hard

The idea that giving unlimited amounts of money to political parties is constitutionally protected as free speech is a sham. It has no foundation in the law or as a matter of common sense. All it does is allow the person with the most money to dominate political debate and, as is too often the case, distort the debate by paying for sleazy, misleading television advertising.

Still, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and his allies insist with straight faces that the free speech amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it impossible for Congress to limit or prohibit the sort of contributions known as “soft money.” This is their basic argument against the campaign reform measure sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

The McConnell contention was shattered on the Senate floor Monday when Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) read from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1976 decision in Buckley vs. Valeo, the landmark ruling on campaign finance law. The court held that Congress cannot restrict the amount a candidate can spend--that indeed is protected as free speech. But the justices added that limits on fund-raising not only were allowable, they were needed to restrain the corrosive influence of too much money from a single source, thus upholding the $1,000 limit on individual contributions to a candidate’s campaign--so-called “hard” money.

The justices did say that party committees could collect unlimited amounts for legitimate party-building such as voter registration and education. But political parties have grabbed loopholes in the law to spend soft money on candidate electioneering, something Congress never intended. This is the “soft money” that McCain and Feingold properly seek to prohibit.

Soft money is what bought fat cats overnight stays at the White House and gives big contributors easy access to Congressional offices. Not incidentally, it also is the money that gives incumbent members of Congress a built-in advantage over challengers. No wonder McConnell, chairman of the party committee that spends millions to support the reelection of fellow GOP senators, wants to keep this money flowing. And that is exactly why it should be banned.