The Soft Money in American Election
The “soft money” is a special phenomenon in American Election, especially in the presidential election. In short, soft money is a kind of contribution to political parties. People didn’t focus on it when its amount was not large. While in the 1980s, the soft money became an important strategy for interest groups to influence politics in the United States. The increase of its amount is very surprising. President Bush banned the soft money contributions by signing on a Reform Act of 2002.[1] The aim of this act is to make the election clean by banning the soft money. In spite of it, the effect of soft money still exists in nowadays. This article is to retrospect the development the soft money and make some simple analysis of it. I don’t want to just make a simple introduction of this problem. In my opinion, the development of the soft money can be viewed as a reference of Federal Finance Campaign Law. It even reflects some characteristics of politics in America.
Name:Wang Yao Student ID：S07494
Research paper supervisor:Dr.Seku Conde
Minzu University of China
2007-2008 Academic Year
Why the soft money emerges?
Once upon a time, the scholars of both national and international paid more attention on the soft money. It is not very difficult to find its definition in the articles and books of these scholars. In their descriptions, “Soft money is a name coined in the 1980s for the contribution to political parties that exceed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and amendments.”[2]
However, as far as I am concerned, we must understand what the “FECA” is, the Federal Campaign Finance Law associated with it and the fund—raising system. Only by doing this, we can understand why the soft money emerges.
The emergence of the soft money deeply rooted in the fund—raising system in the United States. This system is an outcome of the federalism. Zhang Li Ping, a famous Chinese scholar, has clearly generalized the relationship between them. His saying can be summarized as: we all know that the U.S. is a federal country. The states, not the country should responsible for election according to the federal principles. It means that if the candidates need some fund for the election, they must raise the money by themselves.[3]
Whether the states have the unlimited power to manage the election and make the law about it? The answer is “No”. In fact, the citizen from different social classes focused on the fund—rising all the time. It is in 1896 that an enterpriser in the region of Cleveland, Mark Hanna, he donated $10, 0000 for presidential candidate, William McKinley. [4] $ 10,000 in 1896 is equals to $100, 0000 today. This event attracted spread focus. The voice of “regulating the fund--raising” was very loudly even at that time.
From then on, many Acts carried out to keep the election clean. “Tilman Act” in 1907 is first one to regulate the political contribution. It abolished the qualification of some organizations to make contributions directly to the candidates. These organizations include companies and enterprises. In 1910, “Federal Corrupt Practices Act” aims to increase the diaphaneity of the fund—rising. Thanks to some elector scandal, the political parties must make the bills related with the presidential election known by the public, according to the law. 1n 1939 and 1940, “Clean Politics Act” and its amendment made a limit of political donation. By the “Smith—Connally Act”, the labor union’s donation to the candidates was limited. Taft—Hartley Act reclaimed this limit. In 1966, “Long Act” was carried to decrease the effect of rich men to the politics. The most crucial act was carried in 1971. [5]That’s the act mentioned above—Federal Election Campaign Act.
We can easily make a conclusion from all these acts that the limits of the contribution to the election became more and stricter during the 19th and 20th centuries. We can even say that the Federal Campaign Finance Law was becoming more and more regulative.
However, there is no perfect thing in the world; so, these legislatives can’t be the exception.
The FECA is a typical example to illustrate this. It has a fatal drawback. It allows the organizations, such as companies and the labor—unions to found, manage or raise a kind of independent fund for some political use. [6]These organizations all have the Political Action Committees (PAC). This kind of committee became more and more active to do the affairs of the fund. The contradiction is obvious. On one hand, the candidates can’t receive money from the companies or the workers by the limits of the FECA. On the other hand; they can receive their money through the PAC. In fact, the money is out of the control of the federal law. That’s the soft money.
But, is the emergence of soft money just results from a drawback in FECA? In other words, is the fatal drawback of FECA just a base mistake in the progress of legislatives can be avoided? I don’t think so. In my eyes, its emergence is unavoidable. The drawback of the FECA has some deep origin.
If we consider these acts carefully, we can discover their common characteristic. The aim of all of them is not to change the fund—raising system itself, because changing it will conflict with the federal principle. So, they just made some adjustments to decrease the negative effects of money. The fund—raising system never changes. The principle that states should responsible for the election never changes. This principle is even a symbol of some freedom of the states. In one word, the federal legislatives must retain some freedom for the states.
This kind of freedom decides the emergence of soft money can’t be avoided.
In 1979, Congress amended the FECA. The amendment excludes state and local party building activities from the federal contribution limits. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) took some further steps. It clarified the law in a series of rulings. These rulings in essence allow individuals and organizations to give amounts of money to the national parties “non--federal” accounts. [7]
From all these above, it is might not difficult for us to understand the existence of the soft money. I will summarize the reasons by using a typical view: “The soft money loophole arose in response to two forces: the sorry state of national parties in the 1970s and long—held belief among political scientists that stronger national parties would improve the ability of voters to hold government accountable.” [8]
Why the soft money develops so fast?
In the 1970s, the amount of soft money is not very large, though it is not subjected to the federal campaign finance laws. But its development in the following days is very surprising. The amount of soft money needn’t to report to the Federal Election Commission until 1991. In spite of these, we can see that in the decade spanning the 1992 and 2002 elections soft money contributions to political parties surged from 86$ to $496 million. [9]
From the increase of the campaign funds spent on the presidential election, we can find out why the soft money develops so fast.
In America, there is an old saying: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics”. Even Chinese people are familiar with it. To gain the success of the election (either the Congress election or Presidential election), the candidates should make the people understand their opinions. The America is a large country of large population. How the candidates communicate with so many people? They need to travel to different regions in order that make some speech to introduce them. Lots of money is needed for the communication. In spite of the advertisement, it’s not exaggerated to say that the whole progress of the election can’t without money.
Though, the money spent on the election in the past is less than nowadays. It is said that Regan just spent $10,000 to become the President. But according to the reliable statistics, the amount of campaign funds spent on the presidential election of the year 2000 increases to more than 3 billion, reaching a historical high.
The problem lies in the fact that the situation changes, but the method remains. Compared with the old days, the number of the voters is much larger, but the candidates still need to communicate with them. So, the amount of money they need is larger. Besides, there are some other reasons for the increase of the election expenditure. For instance, 1952 is a turning point in the history of American Election. After this year, many candidates paid more attention on the power of the political campaign consultants. They all would like to choose the consultants by themselves. To remain the work of these consultants, they must prepare the money as theirs salary. [10] Further, after 1952, some new means took on in the election, such as the television, inter--net, etc. Candidates need money to use these means effectively by the enough money. [11]
In this situation, the development of the soft money is apprehensible. The candidates of different political [...]
). If you have the permission, you can login now.