McCain-Feingold Act: A History of Campaign Finance Reform

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act after its primary sponsors Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, represented a significant effort to reform campaign finance laws in the United States. Passed with the goal of reducing the influence of “soft money” and addressing perceived corruption in political campaigns, the act aimed to create a fairer and more transparent electoral process.

Prior to McCain-Feingold, the existing regulations allowed for unlimited contributions to political parties, known as “soft money,” purportedly for party-building activities rather than direct candidate support. However, this loophole allowed corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to inject substantial sums into the political system, raising concerns about undue influence over elected officials and policy decisions. The act sought to close this loophole by prohibiting national party committees from accepting or spending soft money. State and local parties faced restrictions on using soft money for federal election activities.

Another key provision of the McCain-Feingold Act addressed “electioneering communications.” This provision aimed to regulate political advertisements aired close to elections that specifically mentioned a candidate’s name. The Act prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to finance electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. This provision aimed to curb the influence of large organizations in the crucial final weeks of a campaign.

While the act aimed to reduce the influence of large sums of money, it also increased the amount individuals could contribute directly to candidates and parties (often referred to as “hard money”). This increase was intended to offset, in part, the restrictions on soft money. The act also included provisions to ensure that candidates received the lowest available advertising rates from broadcasters.

The McCain-Feingold Act quickly faced legal challenges. Opponents argued that its restrictions on soft money and electioneering communications violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the law in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), ultimately upholding the core provisions of the act, including the ban on soft money contributions to national parties. The Court reasoned that the restrictions were narrowly tailored to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of campaign finance law continued to evolve. In the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Court overturned parts of McCain-Feingold, ruling that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political expenditures. The Court reasoned that restricting such spending violated the First Amendment. Citizens United ushered in the era of Super PACs and significantly altered the landscape of campaign finance. These Super PACs, unlike traditional political action committees, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose candidates, as long as they do not coordinate directly with the candidate’s campaign.

The McCain-Feingold Act remains a pivotal piece of legislation in the ongoing debate over campaign finance reform. While it achieved some success in curbing soft money contributions, subsequent court decisions, particularly Citizens United, have significantly weakened its impact and opened the door to greater spending by corporations and unions. The debate over how to regulate campaign finance in a way that balances free speech with the need for fair and transparent elections continues to this day.