Recording industry sues college students

[Joe]

Wrong, unless you think there aren't any PAC's that work exclusively for a single candidate.

I think you have a different definition of "soft money" then I do. Contributions to PAC's are also a form of soft money.

I was wrong about one thing - PACs could legally raise soft money prior to 2002 - but they couldn''t spend it to directly benefit one federal candidate. PAC soft money expenditures could indirectly benefit candidates through issue advocacy spending and the like - you couldn't use it to advertise FOR a candidate, but you could use it to advertise issues RELATED to a candidate.

That's just one form of soft money, however; the other major type is money that goes to the national parties and is distributed among various campaigns across the country. Again, soft money could not be used to directly benefit federal candidates; state parties had to do some pretty elaborate bookkeeping in order to show that they weren't using soft money for this purpose.

PAC's still exist don't they? They are still the driving force behind campaign advertising. If they are illegal then there are a lot of people breaking the law...

The driving force behind campaign advertising tends to be individual contributions, actually.

PACs do still exist, but they are no longer allowed to take soft money, only hard money. Hard money is subject to all the federal regulations and laws on the books, and it can be used to directly benefit a single candidate. All soft money (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) became illegal in 2002.

[The Kernel]

I was wrong about one thing - PACs could legally raise soft money prior to 2002 - but they couldn''t spend it to directly benefit one federal candidate. PAC soft money expenditures could indirectly benefit candidates through issue advocacy spending and the like - you couldn't use it to advertise FOR a candidate, but you could use it to advertise issues RELATED to a candidate.

PAC's can also use their money to conduct smear campaigns against opposing candidates, which is really just as good as spending the money promoting their desired candidate in a two party system. You should have seen some of the smear advertising that was conducted against Gray Davis during the recall election in California, all paid for with PAC funding naturally.

That's just one form of soft money, however; the other major type is money that goes to the national parties and is distributed among various campaigns across the country. Again, soft money could not be used to directly benefit federal candidates; state parties had to do some pretty elaborate bookkeeping in order to show that they weren't using soft money for this purpose.

The driving force behind campaign advertising tends to be individual contributions, actually.

Where did you get that idea? As far as raw amounts of donations you might be correct, but as was pointed out earlier, those individual donations are NOT being given to further a larger agenda, whereas large coporations and wealthy individuals ARE interested in pushing a single agenda on one issue or another.

PACs do still exist, but they are no longer allowed to take soft money, only hard money. Hard money is subject to all the federal regulations and laws on the books, and it can be used to directly benefit a single candidate. All soft money (with a few exceptions, I'm sure) became illegal in 2002.

I don't pretend to understand the legal loopholes involved in soft money contributions, but from what I understand from listening to talking points on the subject, there are still sufficient loopholes in the law to allow soft money to make a substantial influence.