To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser salon.com > News Nov. 10, 1999 URL: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/10/soft_money Follow the soft money A new ad featuring Hillary Rodham Clinton marks the beginning of what will likely be a long season of soft-money spending. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Anthony York A new stealth campaign ad in New York boosting Hillary Rodham Clinton has created the first advertising controversy in the race for New York's open Senate seat. Republicans have filed suit, and campaign-finance watchdogs say that the spot marks the latest example of "soft-money" abuse, and the emergence of soft money as a key component of the 2000 election battles. The television advertisement in question is the product of a $100,000 Democratic media campaign, which was launched in response to New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's first ads for his Senate campaign. (Though neither has formally declared candidacy, Giuliani and Clinton are both expected to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Daniel Moynihan.) The pro-Clinton ad is a classic soft-money spot, not paid for by Clinton's personal campaign coffers and studiously not an explicit appeal for votes. But it's hard to tell that from the ad itself, which features a beaming Clinton and cheerful New Yorkers encouraging viewers to "Call Hillary." The number given on the screen is actually that of the New York Democratic Party. Republicans have already sued, alleging that the ad represents an illegal coordination between New York Democratic officials and Clinton's campaign. While most political-law experts have tagged the suit as a long shot, the ad marks the first noticeable infusion of soft money into campaign 2000, and experts are warning voters to prepare for an unprecedented barrage of political issue advertising over the next 12 months. "This is the dream loophole of politics," said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. The loophole in question is the fruit of a 4-year-old federal court decision in Colorado. Reformers say that the decision undermines the 1976 Buckley decision (which Makinson calls "the Magna Carta of campaign finance law"), which upheld federal restrictions on certain kinds of campaign spending. The Colorado decision eased those restrictions, clearing the way for so-called issue ads, which don't explicitly promote a single candidate. The decision also made it much easier for political groups throughout the spectrum to raise and spend millions of unregulated campaign dollars. Indeed, said Makison, the AFL-CIO alone spent $35 million on issue ads in 1996. "Then the Chamber of Commerce stepped in to counteract what labor was doing," he said. "It was like exploding the first H-bomb, and 1996 was really the genesis of all of this." Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign spokesman, Dan Schnur, blasted Democrats and Clinton for the ad, calling it a blatant fudging of campaign laws. He reiterated McCain's call for a ban on soft money. "Whenever a candidate tries to twist the rules to their own benefit, it makes the public all the more cynical, and strengthens the call for campaign-finance reform," Schnur said. Both McCain and Democrat Bill Bradley have taken pledges that they will instruct their respective parties not to raise or spend soft money on their behalf if they receive the nominations of their respective parties. By contrast, the two front-runners, Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, have embraced soft money. Candidates are still limited by tough federal campaign laws, which restrict individual donors to a maximum contribution of $1,000 during a political cycle. But there are no restrictions on giving to political parties. Now, the state organizations have become "clearinghouses for laundering soft money," Makinson said. "What the parties have done for years is encourage big donors to give at the state level, where there are no regulations, and less media scrutiny," he said. "They try to fly under the radar and shift millions of dollars around during the election cycle. In '96, we found all sorts of big-money transfers happening between state parties." Gore and Bush are both tightening their grips on state party structures around the country. In California, the nation's largest state and a gold mine of big-shot political donors, state Democratic Party leaders have long been in the Gore camp. As Bradley began to surge in polls earlier this year, California Democratic Party chairman Art Torres pledged his loyalty to the vice president and blasted the former New Jersey senator. "To have an elitist who doesn't connect with real people? Please," Torres scoffed to the San Francisco Chronicle in April. Torres criticized Bradley as someone who "hasn't been out there in the real world ... He hasn't walked the streets of Los Angeles, Oakland or San Francisco.'' With double-digit leads in most states, the Bush campaign team has also begun thinking about next November, planting loyalists in key positions within state Republican parties throughout the country. Bush has already shattered fund-raising records for hard money. Now the campaign is focusing on controlling the millions in soft money expected to pour in to state party coffers in the coming months. In California, state Sen. Jim Brulte resigned his post as co-chairman of Bush's California campaign to become finance director of the California Republican Party. Brulte will oversee a new multimillion-dollar spending plan, and have the power to direct resources where he sees fit. In the last national election cycle, soft-money spending topped the $250 million mark, a figure that Makinson said could easily double this time around. "I wouldn't be surprised at all to see soft money spending to top $500 million," he said. "You can bet that all these people who have already maxed out with $1,000 donations to the Bush campaign are going to find other ways to help their candidate out." salon.com | Nov. 10, 1999   - - - - - - - - - - - - About the writer Anthony York is an associate editor for Salon News.