Question

Why does soft money tend to exert more influence in elections than hard money?

1) Soft money can only be used for ads that are not directly endorsed by political campaigns.
2) Soft money tends to involve larger amounts of money than hard money raised by a politician.
3) Soft money helps a candidate finance campaign space, pay employees, and reimburse travel expenses.
4) Soft money is not monitored by the election commission, so it can be used for anything.

Answer 1

Soft money tends to exert more influence in elections because it can be used in indirect support of a candidate or party without strict regulations, allowing for greater amounts and flexible usage compared to the heavily regulated hard money that is directly contributed to candidates.

Step-by-step explanation:

Soft money often exerts more influence in elections than hard money due to several factors. Primarily, soft money can be used for activities that support a party or its candidates in more indirect ways, such as 'issue advocacy' ads. These ads can closely mirror a candidate's message without explicitly endorsing them, allowing for potentially unlimited spending on campaigns that can impact voters. The value of soft money skyrocketed in the mid-1990s when political operatives found creative ways to use this form of contribution, leading to the passage of laws like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (the McCain-Feingold Act) in 2002, which aimed to restrict the use of soft money.

Unlike hard money, which is given directly to a candidate's campaign and is subject to strict limits and disclosure rules enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), soft money is donated to political parties or causes and has traditionally not been subject to the same stringent regulations. This has allowed for larger amounts and more flexible use of soft money in influencing elections.