the influence of wealthy contributors on elections. On the other hand, others claim that federal regulation of soft money is “an unwarranted intrusion into the financing of non-federal elections” and fear that complex regulations will have “a chilling effect on grassroots electoral activity” (FEC). Since the 1980’s, critics of the soft money system have strived to close the perceived loophole. In 1984, Common Cause petitioned the Commission for stricter rules regarding soft money allocation, hoping to close the loophole. When the Commission concluded that the evidence of soft money abuse was insufficient to rationalize the suggested changes, Common Cause filed a suit that led to a Court order for the FEC to clarify its allocation regulations. In 1990 the Commission approved of new regulations that would require all national party committees to provide full disclosure of the soft money accounts, and all committees (with federal and non federal accounts) to use specific formulas to “determine the amount of federal funds required to be spent for any activity that benefits both federal and non federal candidates” (FEC). While the Commission maintains that they have proceeded “as far as statutory authority would permit, short of barring the combined use of federal and nonfederal fund altogether” (FEC), others maintain that soft money is exactly what policy makers have intended to exclude from national elections since the early 1900’s. In 1907, the Tillman Act was enacted to prohibit national banks and corporations from donating money to political campaigns. The campaign finance reform laws from the 1907 Tillman Act to the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act have tried to control and limit campaign spending and funding, in effort so that special interest groups and wealthy individuals would not be able to use excessive contributions to influence federal elections. According to the Common Cause g...
