Soft money could play important role in presidential campaign

Becoming president isn't cheap, and many criticize how political campaigns are funded.\nThus far in the campaign, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore combined have raised more than $300 million dollars, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The number is based on the candidates' reports to the Federal Election Commission, which oversees federal campaign fund raising and is commonly referred to as "hard money."\nMoney that cannot be accounted for in the campaigns is "soft money," or money donated by individuals, corporations and political action committees to the Democratic and Republican national parties, not the campaigns, for "party building." Soft money -- which is supposed to be used for party expenses -- is often criticized. Thomas Wolf, retired dean of political science at IU Southeast, said soft money often gives the impression of bribery.\n"Soft money is a provision in the federal election law, which permits the parties to collect money and spend it on behalf of the candidate without limit," Wolf said. "This is outside the limit that the FEC administers that the candidates can spend."\nLegally, the national parties must report who donates soft money and how much is donated, only the parties know how much is spent in conjunction with the campaigns. According to Wolf, parties won't spend soft money in conjunction with a presidential campaign without the approval of the candidate.\n"I doubt very much that very many people will say, 'If you give me so much money, I will vote your way,'" political science professor emeritus Leroy Rieselbach said. "What the companies get is what political scientists call 'access.' The recipient of the donation is likely to say, 'Well, he's one of my contributors, I'd better listen.' The impact of it is multiplied because the amounts are unregulated."\nAccording to opensecrets.com, a Web site dedicated to track campaign funding, soft money was first used on a national scale by Michael Dukakis when he ran for president against George Bush in 1988. \nRieselbach said when the parties figured out soft money could be used for advertising, it wasn't long before they started buying television air time. While it is illegal for a soft money advertisement to specify who to vote for, or against, the ads are allowed to be entirely suggestive as long as it disclosed who paid for it.\n"The messages that get out, in fact are not controlled by the candidates," Rieselbach said. "The contributors believe they are entitled to be heard. They do get advantages that are denied those who are unable to make those kinds of contributions to the parties."\nRieselbach said while soft money is not bribery, it does open doors for groups and companies with political motives. For example, he said, when Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House of Representatives in 1995, soft money donors were invited to committee meetings to help draft policies.\n"The smaller, less well-financed interests are likely to be shut out, to be driven out in fact by larger groups who give these large soft money contributions," Riesenbach said. "What do you do if 15 PACs (Political Action Committees) from the oil industry have given money, and then you're asked to vote on whether or not to roll back tax on gasoline? It doesn't look good"