Cite as: 540 U. S. 93 (2003)
Opinion of the Court
appointments that " 'turned out to be very significant in the legislation affecting public utility holding companies' " and made the donor " 'a hero in his industry.' " 31
In 1996 both parties began to use large amounts of soft money to pay for issue advertising designed to influence federal elections. The committee found such ads highly problematic for two reasons. Since they accomplished the same purposes as express advocacy (which could lawfully be funded only with hard money), the ads enabled unions, corporations, and wealthy contributors to circumvent protections that FECA was intended to provide. Moreover, though ostensibly independent of the candidates, the ads were often actually coordinated with, and controlled by, the campaigns.32
The ads thus provided a means for evading FECA's candidate contribution limits.
The report also emphasized the role of state and local parties. While the FEC's allocation regime permitted national parties to use soft money to pay for up to 40% of the costs of both generic voter activities and issue advertising, they allowed state and local parties to use larger percentages of soft money for those purposes.33 For that reason, national parties often made substantial transfers of soft money to "state and local political parties for 'generic voter activities' that in fact ultimately benefit[ed] federal candidates because the funds for all practical purposes remain[ed] under the control of the national committees." The report concluded that "[t]he use of such soft money thus allow[ed] more corporate, union treasury, and large contributions from wealthy individuals into the system." 34
The report discussed potential reforms, including a ban on soft money at the national and state party levels and restric-
31 Id., at 7971.
32 1 id., at 49; 3 id., at 3997-4006.
33 Id., at 4466.
34 Ibid.
131
Page: Index Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007