An interesting hypothesis, not a statement of fact or even a forecast with a high degree of probablility.  The parties are doing very well in the first year of a hard money world.  My own prediction is that the parties will thrive in this new world but only time will tell.  There is no evidence yet of which I am aware of members of Congress or national party officials raising soft money in this election cycle to influence federal elections.  The new law was directed at the nexus among soft money donors, political parties, and elected officials, which had undermined the FECA/Buckley regime.  It might just achieve its modest objectives.

"Kelner, Robert" <rkelner@cov.com> 12/15/03 11:26AM >>>

The point that opponents of BCRA make is not, as Tom Mann suggests, that
BCRA "won't make any difference."  It is that it won't make any
difference in the respect intended by its sponsors (e.g., reducing the
"appearance of corruption" or the appearance that special interest
groups "buy access" to Members of Congress).  BCRA will not make a
difference in that respect because, among other things, the game has
simply shifted away from political parties toward all manner of
"outside" groups who may use Members to raise unlimited (and often
undisclosed) soft money for electionering purposes.  But BCRA most
certainly will make a difference in regard to the relative position of
broad-based political parties versus single-issue interest groups in the
election process.  And that is the difference of greatest concern.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Mann [mailto:TMANN@brookings.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 10:06 AM
To: bruce@cain.berkeley.edu; marty.lederman@comcast.net 
Cc: Rick.Hasen@lls.edu; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu;
RBauer@perkinscoie.com 
Subject: Re: McConnell v. FEC: The big picture


In reply to Bruce Cain,

Virtually all of the scholarly evidence on money and corruption is
limited to analyzing the relationship betwee hard money contributions
(usually from PACs) and individual votes in the House and Senate.  This
research is largely irrelevant to the arguments about party soft money
and the policy process.  The expert reports and majority opinion provide
ample argumentation and some documentation on this matter.

Nor have the sponsors or defenders of the new law predicted dramatic
reversals in policy.  Realism pervades the trial record and majority
opinion.  The same can't be said of critics and journalists who after
initially claiming McCain-Feingold would never pass and then that it
would never be upheld by the courts now rush to say it won't make any
difference.  Give us a break!  Let's all systematically monitor the
implementation of the new law and retain the capacity to be surprised by
our findings.

Tom Mann