Q: Wasn't the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold) supposed to ban all this soft money?

Q: Doesn't the failure of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prove that it's hopeless to get big money out of politics?

Q: Could the Federal Elections Commission just close the 527 loophole with an administrative ruling?

Q: Would banning 527 groups be unconstitutional, and unfair?

Q: Which side has benefited more from the 527 loophole?

Q: Wouldn't more disclosure solve everything?

Q: What is the difference between a 527 and a political action committee (PAC)?

Q: Wasn't the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold) supposed to ban all this soft money?
A: The politicians told us that it would, but really it only banned political parties from raising soft money. One of the big critiques of the bill at the time it passed was that soft money would simply move from the parties to these outside 527 groups. The proponents of McCain-Feingold thought this wouldn't happen because politicians would no longer be asking for the money. That seems pretty naïve. Unfortunately, while the bill didn't ban soft money, it did double the limits on hard money, making a bad situation worse.

Q: Doesn't the failure of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to ban all soft money prove that it's hopeless to get big money out of politics?
A: No. Congress could have passed a bill that really did ban soft money, but it didn't. But, it would be simple enough for them to pass a law that really would ban soft money, including to 527 groups. They should do so now.

Q: Could the Federal Elections Commission simply close the 527 loophole with an administative ruling?
A: Maybe. The FEC has adopted fairly weak definitions of what counts as electioneering. They could reinterpret laws that have been on the books since 1976 that would significantly reduce the size of the loophole. But, they have so far shown little willingness to do so.

Q: Would banning 527 groups be unconstitutional, and unfair?
A: The Supreme Court has said it would be constituional to regulate groups like 527s that attack or promote candidates. Deep sixing the 527 loophole would not prevent citizens from forming political gropus. But, there is no reason that those groups can't play by the same rules that have already been found constitutional for candidates, parties, and Political Action Committees (PACs).

Q: Which side has benefited more from the 527 loophole?
A: 527 groups who are helping the Democrats have certainly raised a lot more money to date than Republican leaning groups. Republican interests have tended to put their money toward the Republican Party, which can now raise money in $25,000 chunks. Republican interests have only recently begun using 527s, and they may well catch up. The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have certainly hurt John Kerry more than the liberal 527s appear to have hurt Bush, so some might say that Republicans have benefited more. In the long run, we all lose because all this just makes citizens lose faith in our government, no matter who is running it.

Q: Wouldn't more disclosure solve everything?
A: That would help, but mostly it would just be depressing. We'd know sooner than we do now exactly who is buying our elections. But, we'd still know that they were for sale.

Q: What is the difference between a 527 and a political action committee (PAC)?
A: A PAC can accept no more than $5000. It can give up to $5000 to a candidate, and can run ads saying whatever it wants. A 527 group can accept an unlimited amount of money, but it can't give money directly to a candidate, coordinate with a candidate, or run ads that say "vote for" or "defeat" a particular candidate. But, these groups run ads that are far more damaging to candidates that what most PACs run. And many campaign consultants and staff have moved between candidate campaigns and 527 groups, making the claim that they don't coordinate pretty questionable.