Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, enacted on November 6, 2002, emerged in response to growing concerns about loopholes in existing campaign finance laws, particularly the influence of “soft money” and issue advocacy in federal elections. Soft money refers to funds raised by political parties for purposes like voter mobilization, party-building activities, and issue advocacy. Unlike “hard money,” which is subject to federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements, soft money was unregulated and often used to influence elections indirectly.  

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 and its subsequent amendments regulated contributions directly to candidates and campaigns but left a loophole for soft money contributions to political parties. This loophole allowed corporations, labor unions, and wealthy donors to channel large sums of money to political parties, ostensibly for “party-building” and issue advocacy ads, but in practice often used for activities closely tied to specific campaigns. 

Issue advocacy ads allowed focus on political issues without explicitly endorsing or opposing a candidate (i.e., without using “magic words” like “vote for” or “vote against”). These ads exploited a regulatory gap, as they were not subject to the same restrictions as ads that explicitly advocated for a candidate. By the late 1990s, issue ads became a prominent tool for influencing elections while avoiding disclosure and contribution limits. These ads often mentioned specific candidates shortly before elections, blurring the line between issue advocacy and campaign advertising. 

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) spearheaded efforts to close loopholes, emphasizing the need to curtail soft money and regulate electioneering communications. Polls consistently showed that the American public was concerned about the role of money in politics and supported efforts to reduce the influence of large donors on elections. 

The BCRA sought to address these issues through several major reforms, including: 

• Ban on Soft Money – prohibiting national political parties from raising or spending soft money and restricting state and local parties from using soft money for federal election activities. 

• Regulation of “Electioneering Communications” – imposed restrictions on issue ads broadcast within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election if they mentioned a federal candidate and targeted the candidate’s electorate. Required disclosure of funding sources for these ads. 

• Increased Contribution Limits – raised the individual contribution limits for candidates to account for inflation and reduce reliance on large, unregulated donations. 

While BCRA had bipartisan sponsors, it faced opposition from both parties, particularly from those who benefited from soft money contributions. Critics argued that the restrictions infringed on First Amendment rights, particularly the free speech rights of corporations, unions, and advocacy groups. The law was immediately challenged in court. The most notable case, McConnell v. FEC (2003), resulted in the Supreme Court upholding most provisions of the BCRA. 

The BCRA marked the most significant overhaul of campaign finance laws since FECA. It sought to curb the influence of unregulated money in federal elections and restore public confidence in the electoral process. However, its provisions were gradually weakened in subsequent rulings, particularly Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014).