Monday, June 25, 2001
Contact: James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel
Phone: 812/232-2434; Fax: 812/235-3685
Email: madisoncenter@aol.com

    The Supreme Court on June 25 in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, held that when political parties coordinate their spending with candidates, the party's spending may be limited as a contribution.  "The Court preserved the status quo by relying on a long line of cases beginning with Buckley v. Valeo, in which it has held that contributions to candidates may be limited to prevent corruption (or its appearance) caused by large contributions," said James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for The James Madison Center for Free Speech. The Court noted that a political party is not "so joined at the hip with candidates that most of its spending must necessarily be coordinated spending."  "This conclusion bodes ill for the 'soft money' ban passed by the Senate in McCain-Feingold 2001 because it confirms that political parties are not just candidate election machines," said Bopp.  "Parties can operate completely independent from candidates regarding federal elections and, in addition, they also pursue ends completely unrelated to federal elections."

    Soft money refers to money raised by national political party committees that the parties do not use in connection with federal candidates.  The national political parties use this money to support state parties and state candidates, to identify and register voters, to get out the vote on election day, and to publish issue advocacy advertisements to advance the party's legislative agenda.  What's more, the non-candidate related activities of political parties inure to the benefit of the political process.  For example, Bopp noted that the soft money ban is unconstitutional because "political parties have used soft money to become one of the  most effective
institutions in increasing the involvement of minorities, immigrants and the poor in the political process."   Members of the House Congressional Black Caucus and the AFL-CIO  have expressed strong reservations about the soft money ban for just that reason.

    In an earlier case, the Supreme Court held that a political party's independent spending could not be limited.  "The High Court's opinion today confirms," said Bopp, "that when parties act independently from candidates or pursue activities that are not contributions to candidates, they may not constitutionally be limited, much less subjected to an outright ban as in McCain-Feingold."

    Bopp pointed to a recent federal case in Alaska that held as much. In Jacobus v. Alaska, the District Court this year held that political parties have a constitutional right to establish a soft money account -- beyond the reach of contribution limitations -- in addition to an account to be used for direct candidate support -- subject to reasonable limits.  "While today's opinion maintains the status quo regarding limits on contributions to candidates," said Bopp, "it provides no support for McCain-Feingold's ban of party soft money."