2003 Campaign Finance Reform

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), often referred to as McCain-Feingold after its primary sponsors, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, represented a significant effort to overhaul campaign finance regulations in the United States. Passed in the wake of growing concerns about the influence of “soft money” and issue advocacy advertising on federal elections, the BCRA sought to address perceived loopholes in existing campaign finance law.

One of the central provisions of the BCRA targeted the use of soft money. Soft money referred to funds raised by political parties for general party-building activities, such as voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts. While federal law regulated “hard money”—contributions made directly to candidates—soft money was largely unregulated, allowing corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums to political parties. The BCRA aimed to eliminate this loophole by prohibiting national party committees from soliciting or spending soft money. It also restricted the use of soft money by state and local parties for activities that could affect federal elections.

Another key provision of the BCRA focused on issue advocacy advertising. Prior to the BCRA, groups could run advertisements that discussed candidates or issues as long as they did not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a specific candidate. This led to the proliferation of “issue ads” in the weeks leading up to elections, often funded by soft money and effectively functioning as campaign ads. The BCRA’s “electioneering communications” provision attempted to regulate these ads. It defined electioneering communications as broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate, are aired within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, and are targeted to the electorate of that candidate. The BCRA prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to pay for electioneering communications, requiring them to use separate segregated funds (PACs) instead.

The BCRA faced immediate legal challenges, with opponents arguing that it violated the First Amendment rights of free speech and association. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the core provisions of the BCRA in the landmark case *McConnell v. Federal Election Commission* (2003). The Court reasoned that the restrictions on soft money were justified to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption. It also upheld the electioneering communications provision, finding that it was narrowly tailored to address sham issue advocacy ads that were effectively unregulated campaign spending.

Despite being upheld, the BCRA’s impact on campaign finance has been complex and debated. While it succeeded in reducing the role of soft money in federal elections, new avenues for circumventing campaign finance regulations emerged. The rise of independent expenditure groups and Super PACs, fueled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as *Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission* (2010), demonstrates the ongoing evolution of campaign finance and the challenges of regulating money in politics. The BCRA, however, remains a significant piece of legislation that continues to shape the landscape of American elections.