Over the next eight weeks we're likely to see $1 million in outside cash coming in on each side for Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson and GOP challenger John Swallow in the 2nd Congressional District race.
The money comes from national political party committees — mainly the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
If you recall the intense debate over the McCain-Feingold election law reform bill, you may remember it dealt with so-called "soft-money" contributions. That's what this money is, mostly large contributions made to national party committees that in turn are passed down to local parties for "party-building" activities.
McCain-Feingold, which passed Congress and was signed into law by President Bush, doesn't take effect until 2003. So its restrictions don't apply to this election.
Right now there's a huge controversy swirling around the Federal Election Commission — the appointed body and bureaucracy that oversees federal elections. The FEC, in drafting its rules to implement the bill — is hinting that it may not apply to situations like Utah's 2nd District and that national parties will be allowed to give local parties unlimited amounts of money, raised in anyway it wants, for local "party building."
Scott Simpson, executive director of the Utah Republican Party, says it will take time to sort this all out, either through the courts (the law is already being challenged as an unconstitutional infringement of free political speech) and in FEC regulations.
Simpson guesses one way or another, local parties will be allowed to take "party-building" money.
But how much party building is really going on?
In the 2000 election, by far most of the money that came from the DCCC and NRCC went to buy TV ads for or against the then-candidates — Matheson and Republican Derek Smith.
These were so-called "independent" campaign ads that couldn't be coordinated with the candidates' campaigns themselves, as per FEC regulations.
But while it may be true that the campaigns don't know specifically what the ads may say, it is all done with a wink and a nod.
For example, I remember several years ago watching a TV campaign ad made and paid for by a candidate's own committee. A moment later on came a TV ad made and paid for by a national committee in favor of that candidate.
The themes were the same, even the pictures looked alike. I called up the candidate's campaign the next day and asked some questions. When did the national committee film the ads? (At the same time he filmed some of his own spots). How did they know where to find him "talking" to interested voters? (We told them where the candidate would be and what he'd be doing). And so on and so on.
In other words, soft-money/party-building money is really candidate-promoting money.
That doesn't mean that it's evil. But it also doesn't mean there can't be negative consequences.
Smith said after his 15-percentage-point loss to Matheson in 2000 that some of the "independent" campaign ads run on his behalf that criticized Matheson probably hurt him.
You see, when you make attack ads that look so much like the candidate's own ads — even if they aren't paid for by the candidate — the candidate gets blamed for them by the voters.
It's the flip side of the candidate taking credit, or getting the political upside, of "good" ads paid for by the outside group.
The new wave of such ads encourage citizens watching the ads to take action. Call up congressman so-and-so and ask him why he is taking campaign money from drug-dealing terrorists who hate American mothers — that kind of thing.
One can argue — and many party loyalists do — that so-called soft money can be used to level the financial playing field. It allows for adequate TV buys in races where the incumbent has overwhelming financial support because he's getting $5,000 PAC contributions from special-interest groups — money that a challenger may not be able to get because he isn't an incumbent and doesn't have a record of supporting that special-interest group.
Utah's closely contested races in recent years have often seen incumbents winning, in part because of their special-interest fund-raising abilities, and challengers spending their own millions in their races.
Swallow says he'll be able to raise between $1 million and $1.5 million to make a credible challenge without spending his own money (he is not a millionaire).
But the soft money will be coming into the 2nd District race this year in any case, local party officials believe.
Whether it comes into Utah in 2004 after McCain-Feingold takes effect is still unclear.
For the next eight weeks, TV and radio stations will be making a few bucks on Utah congressional races.
And viewers and voters should be paying attention to the very end of political commercials to really see who is paying for the ads — and be skeptical of any negative ad messages.
Deseret News political editor Bob Bernick Jr. may be reached by e-mail at bbjr@desnews.com