at produced the ads or placed them on television. This demonstrates the degree to which the national parties have been able to use soft money to increase their clout. H.R. 2183's ban on raising, spending, and transferring soft money to state parties would have weakened the influence of national parties vis--vis state and local party committees. H.R. 3526 had a similar provision. It also would have prohibited national parties from spending soft money on party-building activities and banned national and state parties from spending soft money during elections. The latter bill, however, would have had a greater impact on national parties because they would have been unable to mount coordinated campaigns or broadcast issue advocacy ads. Partisan Imbalance Both bills probably would have altered the financial balance between the two major parties. The Republicans have enjoyed and will probably continue to benefit from an ability to raise more hard money than the Democrats (see Figure 1). The GOP enjoyed a fund-raising advantage of better than two-to-one in the elections held between 1978 and 1990. The gap has narrowed, but the Republicans continued to enjoy a significant advantage through the 1996 elections. The GOP's advantages stem from their early start at direct-mail fund raising, more business-like approach to soliciting contributions, and the greater wealth and homogeneity of their supporters. The Republicans' advantages are likely to grow should they remain in control of the Congress. The parties are closer to parity in soft money fund raising (see Figure 2). The Republicans raised more soft money than did the Democrats in the three election cycles for which records are available, but the differences are much smaller. The GOP raised only 11 percent more than did the Democrats in 1996. Eliminating soft money contributions would more than likely increase the Republican party's fund-raising and spending advantages. *Picture: Figure 1**Pict...
