News Release

March 14, 2001

McCain-Feingold only good for incumbents, study says
Restrictions on campaign spending would boost re-election rates, depress voter turnout

WASHINGTON—The campaign-finance legislation proposed by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) would help incumbent politicians get re-elected by choking off funding to their challengers and stifling criticism of their performance, a new study says.

Banning "soft money" contributions to political parties would hurt their ability to fund competitive congressional races, says John Samples, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, in "Making the World Safe for Incumbents: The Consequences of McCain-Feingold-Cochran." "In close races, banning soft money would make the life of the challenger marginally more difficult than it already is," he says. "Banning soft money would tip the scales toward incumbents."

Samples cites estimates indicating that a soft-money ban would have deprived state and local political parties of $150 million in the 1998 elections and more than $300 million in the 2000 elections. Unlike political action committees, which tend to give to incumbents, parties focus on incumbents and challengers alike, Samples says. "Vitiating the fundraising capacities of parties would make American elections less competitive," he says.

Another side effect of halting such contributions to parties: depressed voter turnout. Samples says eliminating party soft money would significantly reduce such activities as get-out-the-vote drives, broadcast advertising and day-to-day party activities. The resulting curb on grassroots campaigning would reduce voter turnout by about 2 percent, according to research cited by Samples.

McCain-Feingold-Cochran would also help incumbents by barring corporations and unions from running political ads that mention a candidate by name within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. "The real purpose of the ban is to protect incumbents from criticism during campaigns," Samples says. "But making the lives of incumbent members of Congress easier is not a good reason to ban political speech. In fact, it is the worst reason to do so."

Incumbents already enjoy significant advantages over challengers, including salary, office, staff and travel allowances worth roughly $1 million a year to House members and several times that to senators, Samples says. "McCain-Feingold-Cochran makes it harder for challengers to get their hands on the money needed to take on an incumbent," he says.

"If robust electoral competition is in the public interest-and it is-we can conclude that the most powerful special interest benefiting from McCain-Feingold-Cochran will be incumbents who will be challenged less and re-elected more," Samples says.

"Making the World Safer for Incumbents: The Consequences of McCain-Feingold-Cochran"

Khristine Brookes, Vice President for Communications
(202) 218-4628, kbrookes@cato.org

Leigh Harrington, Director of Broadcasting
(202) 789-5204, lharrington@cato.org
Contact for TV and Radio

Chris Kennedy, Director of Media Relations
(202) 789-5212, ckennedy@cato.org
Contact for print media

Andrew Mast, Web Content Editor
(202) 789-5284, amast@cato.org  

Laura Osio, Media Manager
(202) 789-5263, losio@cato.org
Contact for print media  

Caleb Brown, Multimedia Producer
(202) 218-4603, cbrown@cato.org

Lester Romero, Multimedia Coordinator
(202) 789-5228, lromero@cato.org