Forcing parties to set up independent operations that avoid any coordination with their candidates doesn't serve the public good
In 1996 several colleagues and I argued for a limitation on the source and size of contributions to parties (i.e., an elimination of soft money) in exchange for the freedom to spend hard money as they deemed most efficacious. This recommendation did not become part of BCRA and it is no surprise that party independent spending in presidential and congressional elections has exploded. In the two elections before BCRA, party independent spending totaled $3,866,977 in 2000 and $3,645,408 in 2002; after BCRA, the comparable figures were $264,524,078 in 2004 and $223,746,652 in 2006. What are the costs of maintaining this system of limited party coordinated spending and unlimited party independent spending? And what would be lost if it were replaced by a system of unlimited coordinated spending?
This problem description is excerpted from testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on April 18, 2007. The full statement is available at the Brookings Institution website.