The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the Changing Landscape of Campaign Finance

The way money effects politics has been a source of discord between political parties, citizens, and lawmakers alike even before the Federal Election Commission was created in the 1970s. Most Americans believe that money has too much sway on elections (Confessore and Thee-Brenan). Thus, policymakers have attempted to curb the influence money has on politics as well as limit the amount of money in politics on a federal level.

In 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act into law, which sought to eliminate “soft money” from flowing into political parties, among other things. According to OpenSecrets, soft money is “contributions made outside the federal contribution limits to a state or local party, a state or local candidate or an outside interest group… not supposed to advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate” (OpenSecrets.org). These monies were given for “party-building activities,” namely voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote campaigns (OpenSecrets.org). Ultimately, however, these contributions were used by political parties to run issue ads that commented on federal candidates’ record or background just before the election. Before BCRA, unlimited soft money contributions were legal. Soft money was a loophole in campaign finance law that allowed outside groups to contribute unlimited funds to a political party to influence the election.

While the act did help end soft money donations, it opened the door to new ways for money to flow into politics. BCRA led to an explosion in the number of Super PACs and a massive increase in independent expenditure (Kelner and La Raja). Additionally, the money that used to flow into political parties began to flow either directly to candidates or to outside groups. Some claim that political parties’ power and influence over elections has waned in the years since and outside groups influence has grown because of the change in cash flow (Kelner and La Raja). Others are adamant that the ban on soft money forced political parties to change the way they use money they are given and build better databases, launch get-out-the-vote campaigns, and devote more resources to grassroots political activities (Mann).

An analysis of a random selection of Texas federal-level House of Representatives races examines the amount of money spent by and donated to campaigns from 2000–2004 as well as outcomes of the races, number of donors, and money spent by outside sources to determine the actual effects of BCRA. The data suggests that most candidates received more money directly to their campaign after BCRA was passed. As shown in Figure 1, out of the 15 House races analyzed, over half saw increases in money given to the campaign after McCain-Feingold was passed. While there are a number of factors that influence those decisions, there is a correlation between campaign finance law and how money was given to campaigns.

Additionally, the make-up of the donor pool changed slightly after BCRA was passed. The aim of the McCain-Feingold Act was to eliminate soft money and a byproduct of that was an increase in grassroots, individual contributions. Rather than donating to the party as a whole, voters sought out candidates they liked and donated directly to their campaigns or to PACs that supported them. However, overall there was no definite increase in individual donations (Figure 2) across the board. Even though candidates relied less on political parties for funds and issue ads, individuals still contributed to those candidates they wanted to donate to. Candidates percentages raised from individuals did not increase across the board in our sample.

These findings are not aimed to suggest that BCRA succeeded or failed outright. While it did put an end to soft money contributions to political parties, that money flowed elsewhere. Money in politics is hydraulic, it will always find a way around where it wants to go. Thus, the BCRA changed the campaign finance landscape by increasing the influence of outside groups, removing the power of political parties by decreasing their ability to create issue advertisements, and increasing individual contributions to candidates and PAC activities.

In response to these issues, some scholars have come up with other ways to regulate campaign finance that returns some influence to political parties without sacrificing First Amendment protections. Reiff and McGahn argue that the most important voice in a political campaign is that of the candidates. Political parties used to serve as an “echo chamber” for the candidate’s voice and platform (Reiff and McGahn). They argue that political parties provide a so-called stabilizing force in our election systems and revisiting BCRA would be in both sides best interests. By allowing political parties the control and influence they’ve historically enjoyed, voters can get more accurate information directly from the candidate himself, rather than biased information from unregulated outside groups (Reiff and McGahn).

Works Cited

Ballotpedia. Apr. 2018. www.ballotpedia.org

FEC Database. Apr. 2018. www.fec.gov

Kelner, Robert, and Raymond La Raja. “McCain-Feingold’s Devastating Legacy.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 11 Apr. 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mccain-feingolds-devastating-legacy/2014/04/11/14a528e2-c18f-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html?utm_term=.11fb06f6d6b1.

Mann, Thomas E. “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act: Success or Failure?” Brookings, Brookings, 28 July 2016, www.brookings.edu/opinions/bipartisan-campaign-reform-act-success-or-failure/.

“Academic Resources: Glossary.” OpenSecrets, www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/glossary.php#.S

Reiff, Neil, and Don McGahn. “A Decade of McCain-Feingold.” Campaigns & Elections, www.campaignsandelections.com/campaign-insider/a-decade-of-mccain-feingold.

Thee-Brenan, Nicholas Confessore and Megan. “Poll Shows Americans Favor an Overhaul of Campaign Financing.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 June 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/politics/poll-shows-americans-favor-overhaul-of-campaign-financing.html.