| News

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

McCain-Feingold is a good start

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

By Trevor Potter
Sunday, July 2, 2006


When the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance legislation was being debated four years ago, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told his colleagues that it would "eviscerate the national party committees" because of its ban on unlimited "soft money" donations.

The legislation passed and, in 2004, the parties raised more money than ever before. In response, critics explained that it was a presidential election year and an exceptionally motivating one at that; dollars surely would dry up in 2006. Yet numbers recently released by the Federal Election Commission show that the $555.2 million raised by both parties so far this cycle is ahead of 2004 totals by 5 percent.

Still, skeptics say: The legislation was supposed to put an end to corrupt money in politics. Yet here we have a series of scandals unfolding on Capitol Hill like implausible B-movie scripts.

In response, I'd point out that McCain-Feingold -- or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), as the law is formally known -- didn't seek to remove money from politics. After all, we have no public funding for House and Senate candidates and the presidential funding system is broken. Candidates and parties still need money to reach voters. The limited goal of the legislation was to remove the obvious corruption of six-figure individual contributions -- and corporate and labor donations (increasingly solicited by elected federal officials) to national committee coffers. Sponsors argued that focusing on small individual contributions would force the parties back to the grass roots and away from White House soft-money "coffees."

And the law has been an undisputed success in combating the corruption of huge soft-money contributions and an apparent success in re-energizing grass-roots supporters.

Individuals are now limited in what they can give party committees: $26,700 to a committee per year -- no small sum for most Americans but still far short of the hundreds of thousands and occasional millions wealthy individuals contributed to party committees in pre-BCRA years.

Corporate and union contributions to national committees are banned. Not only are these individuals and entities not buying influence with their huge contributions, congressional and executive branch officials are not soliciting such contributions from regulated entities at the same time that legislation or contracts of direct interest to those entities are before a Cabinet officer or committee chair.

And there is every evidence that both parties in 2004 sought (and got) greater individual involvement from volunteers and contributors than in previous years. The media have extensively covered the new emphasis on the "ground game" in key states. Both parties report millions of new donors -- many acting through the Internet.

Some argue that this isn't the doing of the BCRA, since party committees would have increased their Internet activities with or without the new law. Perhaps. But incentives usually matter and if it is comparatively easy to raise money one way (by telephoning a handful of soft-money donors) and more difficult to do it another (by investing money to build a better Internet fundraising structure), the easy way usually wins out.

Of course the BCRA has not solved all problems. For one thing, the FEC's anti-McCain-Feingold majority has done its best to sabotage the new law and questions about what the law requires and prohibits continue to be fought out at the commission and in the courts.

Moreover, the BCRA by design left several large questions about campaign finance -- such as whether the existing presidential public funding system will be reformed to make it relevant and useful to 21st-century campaigns -- for other Congresses.

Finally, we continue to gain new experience and information about money and politics. This ongoing experience points out areas where new structures or reforms might well be useful.

It's not a bad thing that still more changes are needed. Neither human beings nor their governmental systems will ever be static -- especially in an area as dynamic as campaign financing. Perfection may not be attainable, but better laws are. McCain-Feingold was a necessary, but not sufficient, start.

Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is president of the Campaign Legal Center.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Stories

  1. Pirates notebook: Fastball command issues hurt Cole against Cubs
  2. High school notebook: WPIAL title games could stay at The Pete, Heinz Field
  3. Rossi: Cole is simply not good enough for Pirates
  4. Feds tapped top Pa. Treasury official’s phone during McCord probe
  5. New-look Steelers secondary is gaining some cohesion
  6. Environmental watchdog sues world’s largest steelmaker over Pennsylvania pollution
  7. Fishing report: Steelhead scarce, but other fishing good
  8. FBI, other authorities serve search warrant on methadone clinic near Uniontown
  9. Unity supervisors propose joint public meeting with school board
  10. Penguins recall Maatta in time for season opener in Dallas
  11. Fed insight gives stocks room to run; S&P 500 regains 2,000 mark