Thursday, Aug 28, 2008
A new ad featuring Hillary Rodham Clinton marks the beginning of what will likely be a long season of soft-money spending.
Nov 10, 1999 | 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.
Get Salon in your mailbox!