The League of Women Voters has long considered the power of soft money in the federal electoral process to be an outrage because of the imbalance it creates between big-money contributors and the average voter in the influence and access they enjoy in matters of public policy. That's why we support the McCain-Feingold reform bill, S27, which is being debated this week in the Senate.
We consider this year's version of the McCain-Feingold bill to be a sound remedy for the problems of "soft money," which is unlimited contributions to political parties, and "sham issue ads," which are costly broadcast ads thinly disguised as non-partisan presentations of positions on issues and are intended to influence an election. Sham issue ads are the most significant form of soft-money expenditures, because broadcast advertising has become essential to major political races and is very expensive. The reason that parties have been allowed to receive funding in unlimited amounts from unlimited sources is that parties are supposed to spend soft money on "party-building" activities, such as voter registration, that do not directly support a candidate.
It is not legal for soft money to be used for election campaigns, but it happens, because there is no realistic definition of issue ads. In 1999 and 2000, Republican committees spent $244 million in soft money and Democratic committees spent $243 million, a total of nearly half a billion dollars. Many contributions were $50,000, $100,000 or more.
The most important objectives of the McCain-Feingold bill are first, to eliminate soft money by banning political party contributions from unions and corporations and to limit party contributions from individuals, and second, to eliminate sham issue advertising by creating a common-sense definition of a campaign ad. The sponsors of ads identifying a candidate by name, or likeness, within 60 days of an election would be subject to the same reporting requirements and contribution limits as any federal candidate's election campaign committee. Unions and corporations would be prohibited from contributing to campaign ads, just as they are now banned from making direct contributions to candidates.
The League of Women Voters does not believe that S27 will stifle free speech. We think that United States Supreme Court decisions support this position. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that contributions to candidates may be limited to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Federal law already limits the amounts that individuals may contribute to federal candidates, prohibits unions and corporations from direct contributions to federal candidates, and restricts contributions to political action committees as well as the amounts PACs may give to candidates. We anticipate that the rights of corporations and unions to participate in PACs will continue in modified form with the passage of McCain-Feingold. Federal law also mandates that campaign contributions and expenditures be disclosed.
The League believes that the public has a right to know how campaigns are funded, and a right to insist that no entity be able to wield undue influence by virtue of its wealth. Unlimited soft money clearly violates the long-standing legal protections against undue influence.
Please ask our senators to support the McCain-Feingold bill. We are concerned that the high volume of proposed amendments, however well-intentioned, is a disservice to the primary goals of the bill, because the two weeks set aside for Senate debate may not be sufficient to settle all the new issues being raised, and the bill will flounder. The League is strongly opposed to an amendment known as the "non-severability clause." This most offensive proposal would nullify the entire act if any section were found to be unconstitutional. Such political gamesmanship is very bad legislative process.
Sandy Peck is executive director of the League of Women Voters of Utah. Liesa Manuel is president of the League of Women Voters of Utah.