Real and alleged improprieties in Democratic and Republican national committee fund raising during the 1996 elections focused public attention on campaign money and political parties. Virtually all of this attention was negative, leading public interest groups, journalists, and some politicians to call for reforms ranging from a ban on party soft money to public funding of all federal elections to the provision of free broadcast time for congressional candidates. While some individuals and groups have repeatedly sought to whip up a public frenzy over campaign reform, some individuals in positions of power have taken more concrete steps toward changing the law. The courts have handed down rulings that have had significant impact on the conduct of federal elections. During the 105th Congress, a number of reform bills were introduced in the House and Senate that aimed to change the ways in which candidates finance and wage their congressional campaigns. Had these proposed changes been enacted, they would have had the potential to detract from or enhance the roles of parties in elections or to strengthen one party over the other. This is particularly the case of reforms that would have banned soft money without raising party contribution limits. Changes in the campaign finance system could have a significant impact on the quality of American democracy. In the following document we will explore in depth the controversy of campaign finance reform. POLITICAL PARTIES AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACYPolitical parties perform a number of functions that are vital to the political system. These include providing symbols for citizen identification and loyalty; socializing and educating voters; aggregating and articulating competing political interests; mobilizing electoral and governmental majorities and political opposition; institutionalizing and channeling societal conflict; helping to fashion, legitimate, and implement public policies; and fostering soc...
