Much has been written in political communication journals about the role of money in politics, the impact of so-called "soft money" on the integrity of the campaign process, and the growing number of "issue ads." In December, the Supreme Court upheld key provisions of the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 in the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission decision, just as the 2004 presidential primary season was beginning to heat up. We thought we'd take this opportunity to ask some scholars interested in campaign advertising and campaign finance to speculate about the impact of the BCRA reforms on electoral politics.

Each of our contributors offered a distinct perspective on the issue. Clifford Jones and Lynda Lee Kaid offer an overview of the complex new regulations. Erika Falk focuses on the impact the regulations will have on "sham" and "pure" issue ads. Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar explain how the new regulations are likely to affect the competitive structure of elections.

Here's what they had to say:

Clifford A. Jones, Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Lynda Lee Kaid, Professor & Senior Associate Dean, College of Journalism & Communications, University of Florida
"A primary purpose of the BCRA was to eliminate the use of so-called "soft money" ....Congress sought to force political parties to choose between making potentially unlimited advertising expenditures independently of its candidates or making coordinated expenditures which could be treated as contributions and limited in amount. However, the Court in McConnell (2003) struck down these provisions...[T]he BCRA's more direct bans on soft money have so far survived constitutional scrutiny....There is currently a lively debate in the legal community on whether other types of groups, such as '527' organizations, may collect and spend soft money which is not coordinated with candidates or parties." [Full article]

Erika Falk, Washington Research Director, Annenberg Public Policy Center, Washington, DC
"[F]or much of the last decade [there were] two types of issue ads: those that advocate for or against the election or defeat of a candidate (albeit implicitly), usually referred to as sham or candidate-centered issue ads, and those that seek to mobilize constituents, policy makers, or regulators in support of or in opposition to legislation or regulatory policy, called legislation-centered or pure issue ads. The passage of the BCRA...signaled the beginning of a new legal understanding of “campaign communication,” and if one used the same logic of the past, an issue ad. In other words, the new law, by defining de jure what must be paid for with hard money, de facto also distinguishes issue from candidate ads." [Full article]

Stephen Ansolabehere, Elting R. Morison Professor of Political Science, MIT
Shanto Iyengar, Henry and Norman Chandler Professor in Communication, Stanford University
"The BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act – BCRA....eliminated 'soft money' [and] regulated 'issue ads'– advertisements aired by corporations, union and other organizations that may feature a federal candidate but do not expressly advocate election of that candidate....Neither one of these reforms, we feel, will be of much consequence for the overall levels of political spending and advertising or the general tenor of political campaigns in the United States. However, they will restrict the scope of campaigns to the candidates contesting an election." [Full article]