« Indians Equally Guilty | Main | Money and Elections... »
January 22, 2006
What Is Soft Money and Why Should you Care?
You've no doubt heard the phrase "soft money" on the news one time or another. It's a popular theme in politics these days, but, do you really know what it means? You should, soft money is a key element in the Abramoff scandal.
Soft Money is usually a large amount of cash, too large to be accepted by a politician without violating the federal election code. So, it is diverted to one or more allied groups to be spent on the politicians election or re-election, usually buying radio and TV ads by a political action committee (PAC) or the candidates political party, moreover it is a PAC that spends the money. In theory, to be legal the politician must not have any connection to how this money is spent, in practice we often find go-betweens used to communicate candidates wishes or how his campaign manager feels is the most effective way to buy the election while allowing the candidate to maintain a safe distance and seem aboveboard.
According to Opensecrets.org, Representative John Shadegg-R, AZ., who is now running for House Majority Leader to replace embattled Tom Delay, received over $1,920,000 or 46% of his total campaign warchest from PACs. 95% of that money was received from business, $4500 from labor (unions). Compare that to Representative Nancy Pelosi-D, CA, who received 93.7% of her campaign warchest from PACs and only 6.7% from individuals. Labor contributed $148,500 or 64% of her total from PACs*.
In Senate races, 85% were won by those who spent the most, however in races without an encumbent it seems the party affiliation had more to do with outcome. 'The Center for Voting and Democracy recently released "Monopoly Politics," a comprehensive analysis of U.S. House elections. In reviewing open seat elections without incumbents -- perhaps the best measure of money's impact -- the Center found a far stronger correlation between the party of the winning candidate and how that district voted in the presidential race than relative campaign spending. Over one-third of Republican winners in open seat races in 1996 were outspent by Democrats. But not a single one represents a district where Bill Clinton won at least 50% of votes cast."
Prior to 2000, the FEC data shows almost 92% of all elections were won by the candidate who spends the most.
NOTE: PAC contributions to our local Representative Wally Herger-R, CA amounted to over $102,000 or about 45% of his total and almost 95% of that came from business. Rep. Herger maintains a huge reserve of over $626,000 to serve notice would-be challengers are in for an expensive fight and if they can't outspend him, they will probably lose.
*Records obtained from the FEC for the 2005-2006 cycle.
Posted by Post Scripts at January 22, 2006 08:21 AM