A U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding key provisions of the new federal campaign finance law — crafted to limit the influence of money in politics — could have a big impact on how Utah's major political parties operate and on how candidates in close federal races here are funded, experts and observers say.
In their narrow 5-4 decision Wednesday the justices ruled that the government can ban unlimited donations to political parties. Such donations — called "soft money" and totaling hundreds of millions of dollars — had become integral to today's political campaigns, often used to get voters out on election day and to pay for aggressive, sometimes controversial TV ads.
Indeed, in Utah the ruling means, for example, that hundreds of thousands of dollars that were indirectly, but legally, funneled by local and national parties into the campaigns of Republican John Swallow and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, in the 2nd District race last year, won't be available next year, said Scott Simpson, who in 2004 was state GOP executive director. Matheson narrowly defeated Swallow in that race.
But beyond the practical political impacts of the top court decision, there's the philosophical issue, as well. The ruling also restricts soft money contributions and expenditures used for a variety of party functions.
Joe Cannon, chairman of the Utah Republican Party, is one of those critical of the high court's ruling.
"If any speech should be protected by our Constitution, it should be political speech," Cannon said "I'm stunned by this decision. Just stunned."
The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may regulate campaign money to prevent the real or perceived corruption of political candidates. That goal and most of the rules Congress drafted to meet it outweigh limitations on the free speech of candidates and others in politics, the majority said.
At the same time, the court said the 2002 law will not stop the flow of campaign cash.
"We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day," Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.
The court also voted 5-4 to uphold restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.
Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., a co-author of the law, called the decision a "major victory for American democracy." He acknowledged the law won't stop all forms of abuse in the system, but it ends the era when "special interest groups could control the national political parties and underwrite federal campaigns by writing unlimited checks."
Outside funds
Utah's 2nd Congressional District, now held by Matheson, has been one of 30 or so U.S. House seats out of 435 seen as up for grabs in recent elections.
Accordingly, all kinds of outside funds have poured into that race, on behalf of both Democrats and Republicans.
David Magleby, a dean at Brigham Young University and political campaign expert, expects the court ruling to "downplay the impact of political party money but increase the influence" of independent special interest groups — like the Club For Growth. That GOP conservative group in 2002 gave significant amounts of cash to Swallow, who is running against Matheson again next year. The Club For Growth is again giving to Swallow this year, his federal campaign reports show.
Magleby estimates that around $500,000 in so-called soft money came into the 2nd District race last year.
"Soft money" is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations.
Kelly Patterson, head of BYU's political science department, who worked with Magleby on the study, says about $320,000 came into the race from Democratic Party soft money sources, about $180,000 from GOP sources.
Republicans last year were more creative than Democrats. Money flowed from the Utah GOP to other state Republican parties and then back again to 2nd Congressional District GOP candidate Swallow.
Such deals between "soft" money and "hard" money — to use campaign jargon — were legal in 2002.
Swallow got at least an extra $140,000 in 2002 through such switches, the Deseret Morning News reported at the time after reviewing dozens of federal, state and candidate campaign reports.
"The state (GOP) can't do that again" because of the new law, upheld Wednesday, said Simpson, who now works as a government consultant for the state credit union association.
The White House reacted with praise to the court's decision, though it continues to review the lengthy ruling. The decision "will help bring some clarity to the process," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
The justices struck down only two provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — a ban on political contributions from those too young to vote and a limitation on some party spending that is independent of a particular candidate.
Money lost
In the last national election cycle, Democratic committees raised about $246 million in soft money, compared with $250 million for the Republicans.
In Utah, the state GOP last year spent much of its national party money in an exhaustive voter I.D. and turn-out-the-vote effort in the newly drawn 2nd District, as well as doing mailers and one TV spot in favor of Swallow, said Simpson.
The Utah Democratic Party also received some national party money to help its turn-out-the-vote effort, as well other pro-Matheson activities.
Matheson ended up beating Swallow by 2,000 votes — less than 1 percent of the total votes cast.
Donald Dunn, newly elected state Democratic Party chairman, said Wednesday that he doesn't really know how much national party money will be lost to the Utah Democratic Party. "I do know we're going to have to start a belief in local giving" to the state party "if we want to stay competitive — offer an alternative — to the Republicans," Dunn said.
But, said Cannon, don't look to the Utah GOP and its candidates to get that kind of outside financial support from GOP organizations again because of Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision.
"My impression is we won't be able to get that money. But not only from national organizations, this (decision) could very well restrict where we can spend even our own state funds" on U.S. House and Senate races in Utah, Cannon said.
"We likely will get none of the funds from some of those (2002) sources — little or no (national or other state) party money. And we will have to be much more careful in where we do spend the funds we do have" in support of federal races, Cannon said.
Funding vacuum
Meanwhile, Magleby became a bit of a national celebrity Wednesday. His in-depth campaign finance studies of soft money were used by both sides in the U.S. Supreme Court briefs and his work cited by several justices in their opinions Wednesday.
Magleby said the high court's decision should have a direct impact on Utah's 2nd District race next year.
"The decision means these (special interest) guys," like the independent GOP group Club For Growth that supports Swallow, are more important, Magleby said. "The party soft money goes away, and so there's a vacuum" in giving.
"Who will fill that vacuum? Some may be individual donors — for the new law raises their contribution limits," he said.
But clearly special interest groups like Club For Growth will also get involved even more and become more important, Magleby said.
The $500,000 in soft money that came into the 2002 2nd District race "would have been two or three times that if the national people knew how close it would turn out — 2,000 votes short for Swallow," Magleby said.
"Matheson turns out to be a lucky duck," he added. With the high court's decision, "The GOP soft money machine will not be able to come after him now."
Contributing: Associated Press
E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com