and primary winners are given funds for their general campaigns. For Example, in 1996 the Dole and Clinton campaigns each received $37 million in primary matching funds and roughly $62 million for their fall campaigns. It is the soft money that is causing a bulk of the controversy. According to Common Cause Magazine, Republican national organizations raised $75,853,472 while Democratic parties took in $65,126,376 in soft money from January 1995 through June 1996. The total for the 1996 election cycle could reach $250 million, three times more than in 1992. It's illegal to spend soft money in support of any particular federal candidate. In practice, though, the lines between party building and candidate promotion have blurred. Along with the rise of soft money, there has been a proliferation of political action committees (PACs). Under current law, PACs (which are basically an association of people with similar interests) are permitted to contribute $5,000 per federal candidate per election. Critics say incumbents, uniquely situated to raise PAC funds in Washington, derive an unfair advantage over challengers. While there is bipartisan agreement that soft money is used in ways that mock the law, and that PACs benefit incumbents, there is sharp disagreement over what reforms are required. Unsurprisingly, most Republicans and Democrats have very different ideas for campaign reform(Willsmith 59). One measure being pushed by Democrats is a ban on the so-called "soft money," unrestricted donations to the parties which, ostensibly, are for party-building activities only, and not for specific campaigns. In practice, both parties have used those funds to pay for massive advertising campaigns that clearly benefit specific candidates. Democrats say it has fueled a money chase that favors wealthy special interests over average citizens, while causing some of the fund-raising excesses revealed over the last year. Republicans, who have...
