McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform

AFTER DECADES OF complaints about the excessive influence wielded by high-dollar contributors, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, was enacted by Congress in 2001, and in March 2002, President George W Bush signed it into law. The law immediately faced legal challenges, but the Supreme Court upheld its major provisions in May 2003 with only a few changes.

The McCain-Feingold bill was primarily created to combat the influence of contributors who could afford to donate large amounts of money to the national political parties. These donations, known as soft money, were not previously subject to any federal regulations and were often used to run attack ads in the weeks before a contested election. Soft money donations often came from businesses and unions looking to influence public policy in their favor. The donations were given to national party organizations after the Tillman Act of 1907 imposed limits on the amount that could be given to candidates. Supporters of regulation contend that [Page 400]these large donations gave a disproportionate amount of influence to a small number of people at the expense of the broader electorate.

Senator John McCain, as a sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, has pushed for limits on soft money contributions.

The bill originated in the U.S. Senate in April 2001, when primary sponsors Arizona Democrat John McCain and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold helped the bill win passage. The U.S. House of Representatives originally declined to consider its version of the bill, which was sponsored by Connecticut Republican Chris Shays and Massachusetts Democrat Martin Meehan. Supporters resurrected the bill after making a few changes, and the bill was sent on to President Bush in 2002, and signed into law.

The McCain-Feingold Act enacted two major changes in federal election finance laws. First, the bill banned all soft money contributions by individuals to national parties that exceed the federal maximum, which was set at $2,000 for the 2008 election cycle, and also banned all contributions from unions and corporations. This was a significant change, because the two parties combined had raised around $500 million in soft money contributions during the 2000 election cycle, and much of that money had gone directly to advertising for or against candidates in competitive races.

Second, the bill banned national parties from airing any ads that named a specific candidate within 60 days of an election. Further, any group that spends more than $10,000 per year on television advertising must disclose, within the ad, the name of the group purchasing the ad. This was done to prevent soft money donors from simply taking the money they would have previously given to national parties and using it to advertise for that party. An exception was made for advertisements that were exclusively dedicated to issue advocacy, such as public healthcare, environmental conservation, or national security, without naming any candidate or party. Despite the bill's popularity with some campaign finance reform groups, the bill immediately faced legal challenges. A coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition were among the groups opposing the bill. The main grounds for the legal challenge were that the restrictions on advertising and contributions constituted an infringement upon their First Amendment right to free speech.

...