The Impact of BCRA on Presidential Campaign Finance

The debate surrounding the impact of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) has focused largely on congressional campaigns, and the role of soft money and issue advocacy in them. It has largely (and to some extent deliberately) ignored presidential campaigns. Ironically, BCRA’s most immediate impact may be on presidential politics, beginning with the 2004 election cycle. Four aspects of BCRA are directly relevant to the presidential finance system, and these are unlikely to be affected by the initial court challenges (Sandler and Reiff 2002). First, BCRA increases the maximum amount an individual may contribute per election from $1,000 to $2,000, and indexes this limit for inflation. This change will make it easier for presidential candidates to raise hard dollars for their campaigns. (Individual contribution limits to parties and the aggregate limit of individual contributions are also increased; see table 1.1). Second, BCRA places new restrictions on the ability of party committees to spend money in support of their presidential nominees. The centerpiece of BCRA, the ban on soft money, will likely have the largest effect, since national parties will no longer be able to use soft money to finance activities that directly benefit presidential candidates before and during the general election. The use of soft money by state parties will also be restricted, with these committees allowed to spend soft money only on certain limited activities related to federal elections. The new law will thus prohibit state committees from using soft money on many of the activities that benefit presidential hopefuls, including broadcast advertisements that feature a candidate. Third, an additional provision requires party committees to choose between