By KATIE FORREST and MELINDA SEMADENI
Soft money may be the deciding factor in congressional races, according to a recent BYU study on campaign finance.
David Magleby, chair of the BYU Political Science Department, was the principal investigator of the six-month study. He said soft money is the financial contributions from interest groups and parties used for issue-oriented ads. However, he said the ads can’t be used solely for candidate endorsement.
“(Soft money) gives parties another way of spending money to influence the election,” Magleby said.
Magleby and other colleagues began the campaign finance research as part of a grant funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which provided $250,000 for the project.
The study, “Outside Money: Soft Money and Issue Ads in Competitive 1998 Congressional Elections,” analyzed 16 competitive congressional races and the role outside money played in them.
“Unlike hard money, the documented donations and campaign expenditures, soft money contributions made by interest groups can be unlimited, and do not require disclosure or regulation by the Federal Elections Committee,” said Marianne Holt, head researcher for the project.
Holt said the study drew three major conclusions. First, the study found soft money donors becoming increasingly important to competitive congressional elections.
Second, Holt said the research showed a changing tide from a candidate-centered system of elections toward an interest group and parties-centered system of elections.
Finally, she said the study showed that direct mail and phone banks, a form of soft money contributions, play an important role as the means of voter identification.
With the rapid increase of interest groups involvement through financial contributions, political science professor Jay Goodliffe expressed concern for the on-going debate between freedom of speech and campaign regulation.
“The two opposing sides are those who believe in freedom of speech versus those who believe money only corrupts politics. Right now, we are seeing the courts protecting freedom of speech, moving from issue advocacy to almost express advocacy for a candidate,” Goodliffe said.
Magleby and others who researched the study expressed concern for voters who are being deceived by such soft money issue ads.
“The biggest problem is accountability. The consumer, or the voter in this case, has a hard time knowing. In fact, it’s perfectly disguised who is saying what about whom,” Magleby said.
While regulation seems to be the answer, Goodliffe said it doesn’t look likely. He said incumbents would be unwilling to vote for the regulation on an issue which originally helped many of them secure their seats in government.
Holt says she thinks disclosure is the best solution now.
“In the future, I think we will see more legislation about disclosure of campaign donations. It is unlikely that we will see regulation any time soon, but hopefully enforcement of disclosure of funds will move us in the right direction,” Holt said.
