“Whether the issue is consumer privacy, a Patients’ Bill of Rights, environmental pollution, or a prescription drug benefit for older Americans, soft money donors will get their opinions heard on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Soft money is drowning out the voices of average Americans -- it is time to put an end to the corrupt soft money system”Common Cause President Scott HarshbargerAt the basis of the campaign finance reform movement is the belief that everyone should have an equal say in the government, and that wealthy individuals or special interest groups should not be able to manipulate the system through excessive contributions to unduly influence elections. The more expensive it becomes to finance a campaign, the more important the money becomes, and subsequently the less involved the candidate becomes in listening to the “voices of the average Americans.” The Federal Election Commission, established in 1974, was the first independent institution created to monitor and enforce the campaign finance reforms that were designed to limit [individual or corporate] contributions that would disproportionately influence a federal election. The Commission also tries to ensure that the campaign finance information is accessible to the public, because “disclosure…is the single greatest check on the excesses of campaign finance,” (Sabato). Soft money, by definition, are the ‘non federal’ funds which are raised, and spent, outside of Federal Election Campaign Act’s borders. Campaign finance reform evolved in order to restrict and regulate the campaign funds, but the soft money loophole allows committees to establish a separate bank account for ‘nonfederal’ activities, which is not monitored by FECA. Critics argue that the soft money system allows committees to save the federal funds that can be spent on federal elections, and that the system only furthers...
