GOP May Pour Unprecedented National Money Into Western Races

SCHOTT: In the past, most party spending on political candidates came in the form of soft money-- large unlimited contributions parties spend on issue ads. Issue ads can't directly advocate the election of a candidate. They usually criticize an opponent or make a more generic "Vote Republican" or "Vote Democratic" statement. Hard money, on the other hand, is money the party spends to tout specific candidates. Federal law limits that to about $34,000. But a May ruling in the 10th Circuit Court in Denver removed that spending limit, calling it a violation of free speech protections. University of Utah political science professor Michael Burbank says the ruling blurs the line between hard and soft money.

BURBANK: "What this does in the short term is it creates a difficulties for the parties in terms of knowing clearly what they can spend money on and what they can't spend money on. Now that may work to their advantage in some sense, that parties may just say, 'Well, there's confusion here, let's go ahead and spend the money and then sort it out after the elections.'"

That's what the Republican National Committee is contemplating doing. The decision permits political parties to buy large amounts of advertising and simply let the candidates buy the ads. The ruling applies to the six Western states covered by the 10th Circuit Court. Utah is one of them. With the GOP's slim 11-seat majority in Congress, both parties consider Utah's 2nd Congressional District extremely important in the upcoming election. Since the ruling takes the shackles off what a party can spend and how they help candidates, Burbank says voters could see a significant amount of money pouring into the state.

BURBANK: "I wouldn't be at all surprised if Republicans are willing to spend a fair amount of money to support the candidacy of Derek Smith, because they want to keep that seat, given how important it is in terms of maintaining their majority. I think if the Republicans do that, of course, the Democrats nationally will also look to support their candidate, which means you could see a lot of spending from the two major parties in this election in this seat."

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that the Republican National Committee, was making plans to sink large amounts of money into Congressional races they felt were key to holding on to Congress. But officials at the RNC declined to speak on tape, because of a pending appeal to the Supreme Court. Republican candidate Derek Smith is downplaying the potential influence of national money.

SMITH: "We have already established a plan for fundraising and financing our campaign, irregardless of what the national party decides to do. We don't really expect them to come in and invest unlimited, huge amounts of money in the race."

Smith may be reluctant to speculate how national money could help his campaign. Scott Simpson is not. Simpson is executive director of the Utah Republican Party. He says the ruling allows national parties to do what they're supposed to do: get their candidates elected to office.

SIMPSON: "from an idealistic standpoint, the one thing that it does do is allow a national organization, the Republican National Committee and the Republican National Congressional Committee, can all participate on a local level. They pick and choose and target their races and they can spend significant resources in those races. We'll do what we have to do to win, and we'll do it within the law."

HOLBROOK: "We're going to see so much money pumped into Congressional races this year that people's heads are going to spin."

Meghan Holbrook, Utah Democratic Party Chair, thinks there's no doubt that national money will pour into Utah.

HOLBROOK: "What it does is makes the candidates campaign an arm of that money that's coming into the party. But now, if you have a lot of money, you can almost do carte blanche what you want to do."

Of the two major candidates, Smith would benefit more if his national party stepped in with unfettered national support. Accourding to April reports, Smith spent over a half a million dollars in his primary election against incumbent Merrill Cook, leaving him with a little less than $50,000 on hand. his opponent, Democrat Jim Matheson, unencumbered with a primary fight, has nearly six times that amount available. That gap would be much less imposing if Smith didn't have to worry about dipping into his own campaign coffers to pay for ads and campaign literature. Steven Weiss, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, says this is a textbook example of changes wrought by the 10th Circuit.

WEISS: "this ruling effectively creates this gigantic safety net for candidates, and that safety net is the party spending. The candidate would be able to use his or her resources in a much different way with the knowledge that if those resources were to be depleted, the national parties would step right in and spend unlimited amounts on the same type of ads that the candidate would run themselves, calling for their election, calling for their opponent's defeat. It will make it a heck of a lot easier on candidates, and it will make the parties all that more influential in the process."

The result may shunt control of a campaign from a local to a national level. Candidates may no longer be in charge, if the national parties have to send the financial cavalry to the rescue. The ruling may make this shift inevitable, says Matthew burbank, since money is the mother's milk of American politics.

BURBANK: "There will be increasing pressure for the political parties to raise money. The parties will be spending that money, rather than the candidates. So I think it would make the parties more powerful and so what you have is a way to make it easier to circumvent the laws so that big contributors can give lots of money to political parties and that money can eventually end up in federal election campaigns."

The national parties haven't committed to any plan of action just yet. The Federal Election Commission is threatening retroactive fines if either party acts before the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the case. Officially, Republicans say they're simply studying the possibility of applying the ruling to their own spending plans. Democrats say they're waiting to see what the Republicans will do.

To hear this news story, listen to this short Quicktime audio clip. Listen to this news story by downloading a free version of Quicktime.