problem by writing a new law, but it could not remedy the constitutional problem presented by campaign spending limits (Utter and Strickland, 56).
In 1979, Congress, responding to pressure from lobbyists and from within, amended the FECA. The amendments, which eased contribution and expenditure disclosure requirements, effectively gutted the law. The new rules created a distinction between ôhardö money, which is given to candidates and faces strict reporting requirements, and ôsoftö money, which is usually given to the parties without reporting requirements or limits. Congress also revoked the FEC's authority to conduct random audits of candidates' campaign expenditures (Utter and Strickland, 57).
Initially, soft money only had a small impact. Political parties spent as much as they wanted as long as the money goes to party-building activities, such as get-out-the-vote efforts and general advertising (so-called ôissueö ads). The parties raised small amounts of soft money through the 1980s and early 1990s, but during the 1996 campaign, the amount of soft money exploded. The two major parties raised more than $262 million in soft moneyùthree times more than in 1992 (Washington Post).
Much of the increase can be attributed to a 1996 Supreme Court decision. In that case, the Court held that a political party could spend any amount on a campaign so long as it acted independently of the candidate. That decision helped restore the power and influence of parties, which could use their hordes of cash to intervene in tightly contested races and thus make candidates beholden to the national or state organization. Consequently, soft money has blossomed into the keystone of campaign finance reform efforts.
That is because soft money basically eviscerated the reforms of the 1970s. Campaigns have evaded contribution or spending limits via the use of soft money. Worse, acquiring that amount of soft money forces the party s...