Fact Sheet - Core of McCain-Feingold Untouched by Supreme
Court Decision
June 27, 2007
While the Wisconsin Right to Life
decision is disappointing, McCain-Feingold is alive and well.
The primary purpose and achievement of McCain-Feingold was
to ban unlimited “soft money” contributions. The Supreme Court’s
decision in WRTL left this central provision of McCain-Feingold
intact. The ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2003
McConnell decision; it is being enforced, and remains
in effect.
WRTL Decision Weakens,
But Does Not Overturn, McConnell Ruling on Issue Ads
McCain-Feingold also restricted corporate
and union spending on pre-election advertising that mentions
candidates. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of this provision in the McConnell ruling, and the
WRTL decision does not overturn this. It does, however,
prevent the application of that provision to ads that are
not “the functional equivalent of express advocacy.” It is
up to the FEC to determine how to enforce McCain-Feingold
against ads that purport to talk about issues rather than
campaigns. Depending on how the FEC decides to proceed and
the result of future litigation, the days of phony issue ads
and unlimited corporate and union spending on attack ads last
seen in 2002 may very well be back in 2008 and beyond.
The Impact of McCain-Feingold’s
Soft Money Ban:
- The centerpiece of McCain-Feingold was its ban on “soft
money,” the unlimited contributions to the political parties
from corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals.
- McCain-Feingold put an end to this system, which allowed
wealthy interests to gain untold access to and influence
over members of Congress and the President. Soft money donors
received special invitations to closed door receptions and
retreats with members of Congress, and exclusive coffees
with the President and sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom.
- Despite claims that it would starve the parties of necessary
resources, the ban on soft money actually strengthened the
parties, forcing them to create a broader base of donors,
and boosting their overall donations as a result. The parties
raised more hard money in 2004 and 2006 than they did soft
and hard money combined in the corresponding years of 2000
and 2002. The parties raised more than twice as much in
small donations ($200 or less) in 2004 than they raised
in 2000, and nearly 40% more in 2006 than they did in 2002.
|
