Missouri sixth in soft money

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- A recent study by two national campaign watchdog groups reveals that 71 cents of every dollar spent for candidates in Missouri's 2000 election came from unregulated and often untraceable special interest groups and individuals.

The study, undertaken by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, reveals that Missouri ranked sixth among the 50 states in the distribution of soon-to-be-outlawed "soft money" in the 2000 general election.

Campaign funds in the U.S. political system are divided into two categories -- federal and non-federal. Federal "hard" money is spent on campaigns for U.S. offices, and contributions are limited and disclosed. The McCain-Feingold election reform law, which became effective March 27 and known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is the most sweeping change in 30 years.

Sponsors accepted one attempt to weaken the statute by agreeing that it will not become effective until next Nov. 6 -- a day after this fall's general election in the state Nov. 5. When McCain-Feingold becomes effective, all soft money accounts held by the two national parties will be abolished. The act also raises hard-money limits and seeks to eliminate issue advertising by national parties.

Missouri's Democratic congressional members voted for the measure, while the state's Republican members opposed it. Following its passage, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt of Springfield, a member of the GOP leadership in the House, predicted the measure would be declared unconstitutional. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, called the measure's loopholes "campaign finance hide-and-seek."

Despite attempts by supporters to provide greater accountability of campaign contributions, Missouri has never enacted a campaign finance law that prevents the national parties from flooding its elections with transfers of unregulated, soft-money donations. As a result, 71.1 percent of the $30.7 million expenditure of campaign money by both parties in the state in 2000 was soft money.

Democrats' spending of these funds exceeded Republican outlays, $19.7 million to $10.9 million.

Only a handful of states saw the expenditure of as much soft money as Missouri, with all of the top five spending states -- Florida, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania and California -- reporting smaller percentages of unknown contributions in the 2000 election cycle.

Missouri requires the disclosure of a donor's employer for anyone who gives $100 or more during an election cycle. About 28 percent of all contributions listed meeting that threshold have either a generic occupation or nothing listed, making identification all but impossible. Almost half of those were from donors who gave more than $1,000 in a single contribution.

The report also discloses how much the two state committees transferred from their state accounts to their respective federal accounts, which is regulated by the Federal Election Commission. This money is used for activities that primarily affect federal elections. Missouri's Democratic State Committee transferred $13 million to the party's federal account, while the GOP state panel transferred only $2.7 million.

The report also discloses the major sources of contributions for both parties in Missouri. A tally of the major contributors to the two state party committees in Missouri includes:

Democratic State Committee:

Labor, $1,473,425; finance, insurance and real estate, $678,496; health $648,540; lawyers and lobbyists, $541,684; communications and electronics, $376,500; miscellaneous business, $325,745.

Republican State Committee:

Miscellaneous business, $319,851; ideological and single-issue, $141,725; finance, insurance and real estate, $139,360; agribusiness, $121,990; transportation, $105,955.