Edwards, Clark wins prevent

Kerry sweep

Washington—Continuing his quest for

the Democratic presidential nomination,

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry captured most of the convention delegates at

stake in the seven states holding primaries

or caucuses February 3.

Kerry’s so-called “Junior Tuesday”

wins in Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New

Mexico and North Dakota were tempered

only by North Carolina Senator John

Edwards’ victory in South Carolina and

retired General Wesley Clark’s in Oklahoma. 

(Political observers refer to February 3 as “Junior Tuesday” as compared to

the upcoming March 2 “Super Tuesday,” when elections will be held in 10 states,

including California and New York.)

February 3 was the first day in the election cycle in which contests were held

Inside This Issue:

• “Junior Tuesday” Elections:

The Results . . . . . . . . . . page 1

• Campaign Finance Reform 

and the 2004 Election: 

An Interview with 

Jan Baran . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1

• Campaign Highlight: 

Understanding Campaign

Finance Reform. . . . . . . . page 4

Election

FOCUS

FEBRUARY 6, 2004 U.S. Department of State ISSUE 1 • NO 4

On December 10, 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court in

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2002) upheld the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) which gave

the U.S. Congress the power to ban unlimited contributions,

known as “soft money,” to political campaigns.

The Act is commonly known as the McCain-Feingold 

law, named after the two chief Senate Sponsors, John McCain,

Republican from Arizona, and Russell Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin 

who sought to remove soft money as an influence on candidates running for

national office.

Campaign Finance Reform and the 2004

Election: An Interview with Jan Baran

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 2)

To receive this newsletter 

via a listserv go to:

http://lists.state.gov/archives/election2004.html

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards

(D-N.C), celebrates with supporters at a post South

Carolina Primary rally, Tuesday Feb. 3, 2004, in

Columbia, S.C.© AP/WWP.

Kerry Captures Five “Junior Tuesday”

State Elections

FAST FACTS:

✔ In 2000, the Presidential Election

Campaign Fund, which is funded

by a voluntary $3.00 donation by

U.S. paxpayers, raised $225.3 

million in partial public financing 

for presidential primary candidates.
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

2 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

The U.S. Department of State is pleased to present its election coverage newsletter, Election Focus 2004. The 

newsletter will provide non-partisan coverage of the U.S. election process, featuring articles, interviews, public opinion

polls, and other information on the presidential primaries, debates, conventions and campaign activities of the major 

presidential candidates.

Election Focus 2004 is produced by the Democracy and Human Rights team in the Bureau of International Information

Programs.

If you are interested in receiving this newsletter via a listserv, please send your request to:

http://lists.state.gov/archives/election2004.html

— BUREAU OF —

INTERNATIONAL 

INFORMATION

PROGRAMS

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Washington, DC 20547

http://usinfo.state.gov

simultaneously in more than one state,

and it also saw the field of Democratic

candidates reduced by one more with

the departure of Connecticut Senator

Joseph Lieberman, who focused on the

primary in the small state of Delaware,

but who only managed 11 percent of

the vote. He also had low figures in the

January 19 Iowa caucuses and the

January 27 New Hampshire primary,

both of which were won by Kerry.

Lieberman, the party’s unsuccessful vice presidential nominee in 2000,

bowed out of the current race gracefully, telling supporters that while

disappointed, he was “proud of what

we stood for in this campaign.”

Kerry’s advisers say he now plans

to present himself as the undisputed

leader for the nomination and will

fight for convention delegate support

in all of the remaining states. On

February 3, he gained 43 percent of

the vote in Arizona, 50 percent in

Delaware, 51 percent in Missouri, 42

percent in New Mexico and 51 percent

in North Dakota. This gives him those

proportional amounts of the states’

convention delegates pledged to his

nomination at the national convention

in late July.

Several recent national public

opinion polls show Kerry with a small

lead over President George W. Bush,

the presumed Republican nominee for

reelection. Kerry will continue to

stress his record as a Vietnam War

hero, his advisers add. Meanwhile,

Republican strategists say they plan to

highlight Kerry’s past Senate votes to

cut military spending and raise taxes.

Edwards said prior to the primary

that in order to remain in the race he

would have to win in South Carolina,

his birth state. In accomplishing that

feat, the North Carolinian captured 45

percent of the vote to 30 percent for

Kerry. Edwards said that victory, plus

a strong second-place showing in

Oklahoma, gives him the momentum

to compete strongly in other upcoming

southern and border states.

Clark, who focused his “Junior

Tuesday” campaigning in Oklahoma,

led by 1,300 votes over Edwards. Each

captured 30 percent of the vote. State

officials still had about 1,000 provisional ballots to count later in the week.

Clark also won five delegates in

the North Dakota caucuses, while two

other Democratic candidates made

small gains: seven delegates in

Arizona and New Mexico for former

Vermont Governor Howard Dean and

one delegate in Delaware for the

Reverend Al Sharpton.

Exit polls conducted in the seven

states indicated that Democratic voters

are dissatisfied with President Bush

and defeating him in the November

general election is their prime issue.

The president, meanwhile, had no significant primary opposition in

Republican voting on February 3.

The next set of primaries and caucuses will be held February 7 in

Michigan and Washington state,

February 8 in Maine and February 10

in Tennessee and Virginia.

Edwards, Clark, Dean and

Sharpton, as well as Ohio

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, all

have pledged to stay in the presidential

race, but, says Washington Post writer

John Harris, “by any measure—delegates, poll ratings in key states or

fund-raising potential—Kerry remains

in command.” ■

(continued from page 1)

“Soft money” is a contribution

made to political parties by individuals,

corporations, unions and other entities,

rather than being given directly to

political candidates. Soft money can

only be spent on civic activities such as

voter registration drives, “party-building activities,” administrative costs, and

in support of state and local candidates.

Prior to the passage of the McCainFeingold law, these donations were not

subject to regulation and were often

viewed as a loophole to campaign

finance law. In contrast, “hard money”

is a term used to describe donations by

individuals and political action committees that are regulated by law and

(continued from page 1)

Campaign Finance Reform 

and the 2004 Election: An

Interview with Jan Baran
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

HTTP://USINFO.STATE.GOV 3

made directly to political candidates

running for federal office. The law

specifies certain dollar amount limits on

contributions made by various groups.

The major question that the

Supreme Court deliberated on was

whether or not soft money has a

potentially corrupting influence on

elections. “The idea that large contributions to a national party can corrupt

or create the appearance of corruption

of federal candidates or officeholders

is neither novel or implausible,” the

court ruled. “Both common sense and

the ample record in these cases confirm Congress’ belief that they do.”

In a January 23 interview, Jan W.

Baran, a private sector lawyer and

expert in election law and campaign

finance, as well as an author of several

books on the subject, spoke with

Washington File writer Alexandra

Abboud about campaign finance and its

effect on the 2004 presidential election.

Q: The Supreme Court in

McConnell v. FEC has upheld

the tenets of the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act (BCRA),

commonly known as the

McCain-Feingold law, that

restricts the use of soft

money in campaigns. How

will the Supreme Court’s

findings affect the 2004 

presidential election?

Baran: The most immediate effect

of restricting the use of soft money is

that the political parties will not be

able to raise or spend it. During 1999-

2000, the two major parties raised

approximately $500 million in soft

money, almost evenly divided between

the Democratic and Republican parties. That’s half a billion dollars that

they will not have this year, and the

question is, will they be able to raise

more “hard money” this year to make

up for the loss?

Q: You’ve just mentioned

“hard money.” What exactly

is hard money?

Baran: Hard money is money within

certain dollar limits from individuals

or from political action committees

who are registered with the Federal

Election Commission.

Q: The McConnell decision

covered a wide range of

campaign fundraising issues.

One such issue was the role

of political action committees

or PACs. What role do PACs

play during an election year,

and also, how have these

organizations been affected

by the McConnell decision?

Baran: Political action committees

are committees that are registered 

with the Federal Election Commission

who raise voluntary contributions

from individuals. Usually these PACs

are associated with either corporations

or unions or trade associations or various national groups like the National

Rifle Association or the Sierra Club,

for example.

These organizations are permitted

to have these committees, but they

must be funded with individual voluntary contributions, and no individual

can contribute more than $5,000 a

year to a PAC. The PAC, in turn, is

allowed to make contributions to 

candidates for the U.S. House or U.S.

Senate or president in amounts not 

to exceed $5,000 per election.

Q: The Supreme Court has

also limited the use of

“issue ads” in a federal 

campaign. What is the role

of issue ads in elections and

in campaign finance reform?

Baran: Issue ads are a controversial

practice that increased over the last

decade, and the McCain-Feingold law

“We are going to 

experience a somewhat 

different campaign this 

time in 2004 than we did 

in the previous five or 

six campaigns, and the 

candidates are obviously

adapting to the new 

system.”

— Jan Baran,

Foreign Press Center Briefing

December 10, 2003 
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

4 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

regulates a certain type of advertising

in a new way. First, it defines a certain

type of issue ad as an ad that’s run on

television, radio or cable, which mentions a candidate and does so either

within 30 days of a primary election

or 60 days of a general election. If an

ad satisfies that description, then there

are two things that occur.

First, a corporation or a union

may not sponsor or pay for that type

of an ad. Second, if an individual or a

group of individuals wish to sponsor

or pay for such an ad, they must file

reports with the Federal Election

Commission if they spend more than

$10,000, and these reports must disclose how they spent the money and

which individuals donated more than

$1,000 to pay for these ads. And these

reports must be made within 24 hours

of the advertising.

The Supreme Court upheld both

the prohibition on corporate and labor

union issue ads of this sort and the

requirement that individuals file reports

with the government.

Q: It’s estimated that $3.9

billion was spent on elections

in the U.S. in 2000 compared

with $540 million in 1976.

What role do you think 

such numbers played in the

movement towards campaign

finance reform? And do you

think McCain-Feingold will

result in less spending in 

the 2004 election?

Baran: It is undeniable that election

campaigns are increasingly expensive.

There are several reasons for that, perhaps first and foremost, the means of

campaigning in a modern society tend

to be primarily television, which is

expensive. But the same would be true

if one were in a metropolitan area running for Congress and would not be

able to afford television. The candidate

would have to use mail, perhaps billboard advertising and other alternatives

that also might be expensive in order

to reach and hopefully gain the attention of growing numbers of citizens.

The average congressional district has

approximately 600,000 citizens, and of

course states are generally much larger.

So that’s one reason for the increased

expense. The reason for McCain-Feingold

was more focused on the relationship

between money that is given to candidates and to political parties and not

necessarily on the total amount of

money that’s spent either by the campaigns or by the parties themselves. 

And in that regard, while, for

example, political parties may wind up

having less money to spend because of

the ban on soft money, the expectation

is that the 2004 election is going to be

more expensive than the 2000 election,

because the candidates have raised

more money. For example, President

Bush has already raised more money

than he did for his 2000 campaign. In

2000 he raised approximately $105

million. At the end of 2003, he had

already raised over $130 million.

But the expectation is also that

other groups may participate and spend

money outside of the campaigns and

outside of the political parties. There

are several groups, including political

action committees, that are already

organized for that purpose. There’s

already been significant publicity about

substantial contributions to some of

these groups, either from major organizations like organized labor or from

wealthy individuals, and the numbers

that have been reported are in the tens

of millions.

So, clearly, that so-called soft

money is going elsewhere besides to

the political parties who no longer

may legally accept it.

Q: Finally, former Vermont

Governor Howard Dean,

Massachusetts Senator 

John Kerry, and President

Bush have opted out of public

financing. What does that

mean, and how does that

affect their fundraising efforts?

Baran: When a candidate opts out

of the public funding system for presidential campaigns, the campaign is not

subject to a spending limit. That means

that the candidates may continue raising

and spending private contributions,

subject to contribution limits, until they

either drop out of the race or until the

party’s convention, at which time a

nominee is formally nominated.

If the candidate accepts public

funding, then he or she also accepts a

limit of how much money can be spent.

And that would mean that they couldn’t

spend money after that limit is reached,

which was a problem for Republican

Senator Bob Dole in the 1996 campaign.

His campaign basically ran up against

the spending limit by March of that year,

and the convention was not until August. 

So it’s a strategic decision that these

campaigns have to make. Ultimately, I

think the decision for the campaigns

depends on whether the candidate

believes that he or she can raise all the

money necessary and basically give up

the public money that he or she would

earn by participating in the public

financing system. 

Senator Kerry, Governor Dean and

President Bush made these decisions

because they believed they could raise

more than the approximately $40 million

spending limit that would accompany

public funding. ■

READ MORE ABOUT IT: 

★ Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Soft Money

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/

Dec/12-968083.html

★ Federal Election Commission

http://www.fec.gov/finance_law.html
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

HTTP://USINFO.STATE.GOV 5

Campaign finance law encompasses a broad range of limitations on how

candidates for federal office may fund

their election campaigns. The law not

only regulates “hard money” contributions, that is contributions made directly

to candidates, parties or political action

committees, but also how such contributions may be spent by individual

campaigns. 

In McConnell v. Federal Election

Commission (2002), the U.S. Supreme

Court upheld the campaign finance

reform measures outlined in the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of

2002 (also known as the BCRA or

McCain-Feingold law) which adds

additional restrictions to current campaign finance law and places greater

new limitations on formerly non-regulated “soft money” contributions to

candidates running for federal office. 

The Federal Election Commission

was established by Congress in 1975

and administers and enforces the

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1975

(FECA), the law that governs the

financing of federal elections, as well

as the BCRA, which is an amendment

to the original campaign finance laws. 

FECA places limits on contributions

by individuals and groups to candidates,

party committees and political action

committees. The following is a chart

from the Federal Election Commission

that outlines these limitations1

:

Campaign★★Highlight

“Hard Money” Contribution Limits

To each candidate To national To state, district & local To any other political

or candidate committee party committee party committee committee 

Hard Money per election per calendar year per calendar year per calendar year2 Special Limits

Individual $2,000* $25,000* $10,000 $5,000 $95,000*

(combined limit) overall biennial limit:

• $37,500* to all candidates 

• $57,500* to all PACs and 

parties3

$35,000* to Senate candidate 

National Party Committee $5,000 No limit No limit $5,000 per campaign4 

State, District & $5,000 $5,000

Local Party Committee (combined limit) No limit No limit (combined limit) No limit

PAC $5,000

(multicandidate)5 $5,000 $15,000 (combined limit) $5,000 No limit

PAC $10,000

(not multicandidate) $2,000* $25,000* (combined limit) $5,000 No limit

* These contribution limits will be increased for inflation in odd-numbered years, beginning in 2005.

1 The chart can be found at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.htm

2 A contribution earmarked for a candidate through a political committee counts against the original contributor’s limit for that

candidate. In certain circumstances, the contribution may also count against the contributor’s limit to the PAC. 11 CFR 110.6. 

See also 11 CFR 110.1(h).

3 No more than $37,500 of this amount may be contributed to state and local party committees and PACs.

4 This limit is shared by the national committee and the Senate campaign committee.

5 A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors which has been registered for at least 6

months and, with the exception of state party committees, has made contributions to five or more candidates for federal office.

11 CFR 100.5(e)(3).
ELECTION FOCUS 2004

6 ELECTION FOCUS 2004

The “Soft Money” Ban 

and the 2004 Election

“Soft money” is a contribution

made to political parties by individuals,

corporations, unions and other entities,

rather than being given directly to political candidates. The funds were raised

outside the limitations and prohibitions

of the Federal Election Campaign Act

of 1975 and could not be used in connection with federal elections. Due 

to the lack of accountability for soft

money,campaign-finance reform

focused for the most part on this type

of contribution, and it was a main component in the McCain-Feingold law. 

The U.S. Supreme Court in

McConnell v. Federal Election

Commission (2002) upheld the

McCain-Feingold law’s restriction on

soft money contributions banning

unlimited and undisclosed corporate

and union contributions to political

parties. Political parties and candidates

will now have to rely on hard money

contributions to fund their election

campaigns. The above chart demonstrates the increasing reliance on soft

money by political parties in elections

from 1991 to 2001, prior to the ban,

and also demonstrates the dramatic loss

of funding to election campaigns resulting from the McCain-Feingold law. 

Political Action Committees

and the 2004 Election

Political Action Committees

(PACs) are not directly affiliated with

any candidate or political party. They

represent corporations, labor unions, 

or other organizations and contribute

money to candidates in accordance

with hard money limitations. Most have

specific legislative or issue agendas.

PACs have increased significantly in

influence and numbers in recent years:

in 1976, there were 608 PACs, and in

2003, there were more than 4,000.

PACs are regulated by the Federal

Election Commission, and have

become a major source of funding for

the candidates. The following chart

shows the growing importance of

PACs from 1977 to 1998, noting the

various types.

The chart can be found at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.htm

Chart provided by the Federal Election Commission and can be found at http://www.fec.gov/press/pacnum.jpg

Non-connected PACs are composed of members who are not connected to a common organization but share

public policy interests.

Cooperatives are companies owned jointly by those who use their services.

Corporations without stock are companies that are privately owned. 

* Chart based on figures obtained from the Federal Election Commission.