What Is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is a significant piece of U.S. federal regulatory law enacted in 2002, primarily aimed at regulating campaign finance. Also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sought to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by addressing loopholes related to political contributions and expenditures. Its core objectives included banning "soft money" donations to national political parties and regulating "electioneering communications," which are political advertisements that previously circumvented federal disclosure requirements.
History and Origin
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was the culmination of years of legislative efforts by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), among others, who aimed to curb what they perceived as the corrupting influence of large, unregulated financial contributions in federal elections. Prior to the BCRA's enactment, political parties widely used "soft money"—funds raised outside the limits and prohibitions of federal election law—for activities such as voter registration drives and generic party-building, which often indirectly supported federal candidates. The law was signed by President George W. Bush on March 27, 2002., Th10i9s legislation represented the most substantial change to federal election law since amendments passed in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.
##8 Key Takeaways
- The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act primarily targeted "soft money" donations to national political parties, prohibiting them from receiving or spending such funds.
- It increased limits on "hard money" contributions, which are funds subject to federal limits and prohibitions.
- The BCRA also defined and regulated "electioneering communications," requiring disclosure for certain political advertisements.
- A major legal challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, McConnell v. FEC, largely upheld the law's key provisions.
- 7 Later Supreme Court decisions, notably Citizens United v. FEC, significantly altered portions of the BCRA concerning independent expenditures by corporations and unions.
Interpreting the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was interpreted to mean that national political parties could no longer accept unlimited corporate donations or union contributions as "soft money." Instead, all funds used in federal elections, or by national party committees, would generally be subject to the stricter "hard money" rules, which include limits on the source and amount of contributions. Furthermore, the act's provisions on "electioneering communications" aimed to bring more transparency to political advertising by requiring that certain ads mentioning federal candidates near an election be financed with regulated funds and include clear sponsorship identification. These changes aimed to reduce both actual and perceived corruption in federal campaigns, influencing the overall public policy landscape surrounding elections.
Hypothetical Example
Imagine a national political party before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This party could receive an unlimited "soft money" donation, say $5 million, from a wealthy individual or corporation. This money, while technically for "party-building" activities like voter turnout efforts or issue advocacy, could indirectly benefit a federal candidate running for election. Post-BCRA, this same national party would be prohibited from accepting such a large, unregulated donation for federal election activities. Instead, the individual or corporation would be limited to donating "hard money" amounts, such as $2,000 per candidate per election (adjusted for inflation since 2002), and aggregate limits to the party. This change forces election spending to occur within defined boundaries, making the financial trails more transparent and accountable.
Practical Applications
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act fundamentally reshaped how political campaigns are financed in the United States. Its primary application was the outright ban on soft money contributions to national political parties and their agents for federal election activities. It also increased the limits for hard money contributions from individuals, adjusting them for inflation. For instance, the individual limit per candidate per election rose from $1,000 to $2,000. The6 law also clarified what constituted "coordinated expenditures" between campaigns and parties, treating them as contributions subject to limits. The5se changes compelled political entities, including Political Action Committee (PAC)s, to adapt their fundraising and spending strategies, leading to a new era of campaign finance regulation.
Limitations and Criticisms
Despite its intentions, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act faced significant legal challenges and criticisms, primarily centered on free speech arguments under the First Amendment. The most prominent challenge, McConnell v. FEC, reached the Supreme Court, which largely upheld the BCRA's restrictions on soft money and electioneering communications, arguing that preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption justified these limitations., Ho4wever, subsequent Supreme Court decisions chipped away at the BCRA's provisions. Most notably, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Court ruled that the BCRA's ban on independent political spending by corporations and unions was unconstitutional, asserting that such spending constituted protected free speech., Thi3s ruling effectively opened the door for unlimited independent expenditures in elections, leading to the rise of Super PACs and increasing concerns about the influence of "dark money" in politics, fundamentally altering the existing jurisprudence around campaign finance.
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act vs. Federal Election Campaign Act
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), not a replacement. FECA, enacted in 1971 and substantially amended in 1974, established the basic framework for federal campaign finance law, including contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and the creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce these laws.
The confusion arises because the BCRA specifically targeted loopholes that emerged after FECA. While FECA prohibited direct corporate and union contributions to federal candidates and set limits on individual contributions, it did not explicitly regulate "soft money" contributions to political parties for "party-building activities." The BCRA directly addressed this, imposing an outright ban on such soft money for national parties and regulating certain "electioneering communications" that previously fell outside FECA's definitions. In essence, the BCRA built upon and modified the existing FECA framework to adapt to evolving campaign finance practices.
FAQs
What was the main goal of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?
The primary goal of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was to eliminate the use of "soft money" in federal elections, which refers to large, unregulated contributions to political parties. It also aimed to regulate "electioneering communications" to increase transparency in political advertising.
What is "soft money" in campaign finance?
Soft money is money contributed to political parties, rather than directly to candidates, that is not subject to federal limits or prohibitions. Before the BCRA, it was often used for "party-building" activities that could indirectly benefit federal candidates.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act?
In McConnell v. FEC (2003), the Supreme Court largely upheld the BCRA's ban on soft money and its regulation of electioneering communications, affirming Congress's power to prevent corruption. However, later rulings, most notably Citizens United v. FEC (2010), struck down parts of the BCRA that restricted independent expenditures by corporations and unions, citing free speech rights.
##2# Does the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act still affect elections today?
Yes, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act continues to affect elections, particularly through its "hard money" contribution limits (which are indexed for inflation) and its broad framework for federal lobbying and campaign finance. However, the impact of subsequent Supreme Court decisions, like Citizens United, has significantly altered the landscape, especially regarding independent expenditures by outside groups.
What are "electioneering communications"?
Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, "electioneering communications" are broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and are aired within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. The BCRA prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for such communications.1