Hello! You are part of a community of millions who seek out Democracy Now! for ad-free daily news you can trust. Maybe you come for our daily headlines. Maybe you come for our in-depth stories that expose corporate and government abuses of power and lift up the voices of ordinary people working to make change in extraordinary times. We produce all of this news at a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation. We do this without ads, government funding or corporate sponsorship. How? This model of news depends on support from viewers and listeners like you. Today, less than 1% of our visitors support Democracy Now! with a donation each year. If even 3% of our website visitors donated just $12 per month, we could cover our basic operating expenses for a year. Pretty amazing right? If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make a monthly contribution.

Your Donation: $
Wednesday, March 28, 2001 FULL SHOW | HEADLINES | PREVIOUS: Mental Health Patients May Undergo Surgery for...

Campaign Finance Reform

download:   Audio Get CD/DVD More Formats
This is viewer supported news

Yesterday, the Senate rejected Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel’s amendment to merely cap — not ban — unlimited "softmoney" donations to political parties. The 60-40 vote gave proponents of an overhaul in campaign finance laws theirbiggest victory yet.

The vote on the soft money provision was a key test for the McCain-Feingold bill, approved twice in recent years bythe House of Representatives only to die in the Senate.

But before we look at whether any meaningful reform is likely to emerge from a Congress that got elected under thecurrent system, let’s clarify a few terms:

SOFT MONEY goes from an individual or group such as a corporation or union, to a political party.

HARD MONEY goes from a person or political action committee to an individual candidate.

The Supreme Court has upheld limits on hard money contributions but has not addressed legislative attempt to ban softmoney contributions.

A few jurisdictions have also tried to limit spending on campaigns, saying that unless it is capped along withcontributions, elections still advantage the wealthy. So far, the Supreme Court has said campaign spending is a formof free speech protected by the First Amendment and thus, cannot be limited. But a minority on the Supreme Courtdisagrees that money equals speech. They, along with many activists, fear that unless BOTH contributions and spendingare capped, special interests will be able to buy access and influence.


  • John Bonifaz, Executive Director, National Voting Rights Institute.
  • Charles Kolb, President, Committee on Economic Development.
  • Jim Bopp, General Council of the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

Related links:

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

This is viewer supported news