Campaign Finance in the 2000 Federal Elections: Overview and Estimates of the Flow of Money

Campaign Finance in the 2000 Federal Elections: Overview and Estimates of the Flow of Money

Order Code RL30884
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Campaign Finance in the
2000 Federal Elections:
Overview and Estimates
of the Flow of Money
March 16, 2001
Joseph E. Cantor
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The author expresses appreciation to Clay Wellborn, of the CRS Government and
Finance Division, for assistance in preparing the figure, and Bob Biersack, of the FEC
Data Systems Division, for providing the FEC-disclosed data for 2000.

Campaign Financing in the 2000 Federal Elections:
Overview and Estimates of the Flow of Money
Summary
Federal election law regulates money in federal elections through a ban on union
and corporate treasury money, limits on contributions, and uniform, periodic
disclosure of receipts and expenditures. Money raised and spent under these laws to
directly influence federal elections is commonly known as hard money. Money that
is largely outside the restrictions and prohibitions of the federal regulatory
framework–but raised and spent in a manner suggesting possible intent to affect
federal elections–is commonly known as soft money. Of the three major elements of
current federal regulation, the prohibition on union and corporate treasury money is
perhaps the most important and best helps to explain the divide between hard and soft
money activities. Just as interest groups, typically corporations and unions, are the
key source of funding activities in the soft money arena, individual citizens are the
primary sources for funding in the hard money arena.
Based on Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, it appears that $1.82 billion
in federally-regulated (hard) money was spent to communicate with voters to
influence federal elections in 2000. This includes:
! All candidate activity and communications: $1.61 billion
! Independent expenditures (by PACs and parties): $26 million
! Coordinated expenditures by parties (under 2 USC § 441a(d)): $51 million
! National party hard money transfers to state/local parties (federal accounts):
$133 million
On the soft money side, a rough 2000 estimate of between $582 - $683 million
includes one reported FEC figure–for national party non-federal account transfers–
and an amalgam of estimates by academic studies, experts, observers, and the best
judgment of the author. The estimated total consists of:
! Issue advocacy by parties and interest groups: $208-$309 million
! Exempt union/corporation activities aimed at members: $100 million
! National party non-federal (soft money) transfers to state/local parties: $274
million
The overall estimate of $2.4 - $2.5 billion spent on federal elections in 2000, while
serving to put these activities in some context, should be used with caution, as it
comprises soft money estimates as well as hard and soft money data. It also omits
some types of spending other observers believe should be included.
Aggregating nationwide data may also mask the true impact of interest group
and party spending, which tends to be concentrated in a relatively small number of
competitive races. Hence, the findings in this report should be weighed against recent
academic studies which more closely examine the flow of money in the most
competitive races. That closer scrutiny, combined with the broad overview herein,
can best lead to a more accurate understanding of money in today’s elections.

Contents
Hard versus Soft Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Money in the 2000 Federal Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Hard Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Soft Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Methodology and Organization of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Rectangles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ovals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Lines and Arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Hard Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Individual citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
To Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
To PACs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
To Political Parties–Federal Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
PACs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
From interest groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
From individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
To candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
To political parties–federal accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Independent Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
U.S. Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Subsidies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
To candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Candidates (From Personal Funds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Contributions/Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
To candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Political Parties – Federal Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
From individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
From PACs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Contributions/Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
To candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
To state parties (transfers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Expenditures/Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Independent Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Coordinated Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Issue Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
From individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
From PACs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
From U.S. Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
From candidates’ personal funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

From political parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
For all candidate activity and communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Soft Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Individual Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
To political parties–non-federal accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Political Parties–Non-federal Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Receipts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
From individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
From interest groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
To state parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Issue Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Interest Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Donations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
To political parties–non-federal accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Issue Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Exempt Activities to Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Hard and Soft Money: Mixed Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Political Parties–Federal and Non-federal Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Disbursements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Issue Advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
All Candidate Activity and Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Independent Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Coordinated Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Party Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Issue Advocacy (Election-related) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Exempt Activities Aimed at Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
List of Figures
Flow of Money in General Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Campaign Financing in the 2000 Federal
Elections: Overview and Estimates of the
Flow of Money
This report summarizes the major players, types of activities, and financing in
contemporary federal elections, examining federally regulated activities (i.e., financed
with so-called hard money) and those that are largely not subject to federal election
law (i.e., financed with so-called soft money).1 The big picture on the flow of money
is presented in figure 1, which shows the key players and channels through which hard
and soft money is donated and spent, and where they overlap. The figure is explained
in the report’s text, which focuses on the financial levels of that activity, form of
spending or donating, or participant’s role in the 2000 federal elections. This is
accomplished through the latest available data from the Federal Election Commission
(FEC) or, where no official data are available (primarily in the soft money arena),
based on the best available estimates by scholars and observers.
Hard versus Soft Money
The three fundamental aspects of the regulation of money in federal elections
are: (1) the ban on union and corporate treasury money; (2) limitations on
contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACs);
and (3) uniform, periodic disclosure of receipts and expenditures. These provisions
apply to all activities on the hard money (federally regulated) side of the figure.
Of the three cornerstones of current federal regulation, the prohibition on money
from the treasuries of labor unions and corporations (i.e., union dues money and
corporate profits) is perhaps the most important; it is certainly the longest-standing
element of federal regulation. The corporate ban has been in effect since 1907, and
the union treasury ban was implemented provisionally in 1943 and then permanently
in 1947. More than anything else, these prohibitions explain the divide between the
activities on the hard versus soft money sides of the figure. Interest groups (typically
corporations and labor unions) are the key source of funding for activities in the soft
money arena, just as individual citizens form the primary basis for funding on the hard
money side.
1 One form of soft money, that which is raised and spent by national parties, has been subject
to FEC regulations since 1991, but only insofar as requiring its disclosure. It is not regulated,
however, by the prohibitions and restrictions of federal election law. This aspect makes the
party soft money unique among the soft money activities described in this report.

CRS-2
Money in the 2000 Federal Elections
Hard Money. Based on FEC data, it appears that $1.82 billion in federally-
regulated (hard) money was spent to communicate with the electorate to influence
federal elections. This includes the following amounts and categories of spending (for
activities in the ovals on figure 1):
! All candidate activity and communications: $1.61 billion
! Independent expenditures (by PACs and parties): $26 million
! Coordinated expenditures by parties (under 2 USC § 441a(d)): $51 million
! National party transfers to state/local parties (federal accounts): $133 million
The inclusion of the last item may inflate the total figure, because state parties may
have spent some of the transferred money on such other forms of party spending as
independent expenditures and coordinated expenditures. The state parties also
presumably used transferred funds for party issue advocacy, although for purposes of
figure 1 and this report, all of that spending is counted as a soft money activity (even
though a share of party issue advocacy must be funded with hard money).
Soft Money. On the soft money side, this report’s estimate is based primarily
on estimates by academic studies and experts and other observers. As a result, the
overall estimate is a less authoritative figure than is the hard money figure, just as the
spending figures related to its component elements are less authoritative than the
various hard money components. A compilation of the estimates for the various soft
money components yields an overall total of between $582 - $683 million, which
include the following:
! Issue advocacy by parties and interest groups: $208-$309 million
! Exempt union/corporation activities aimed at members: $100 million
! National party non-federal transfers to state/local parties: $274 million
The first two categories are based solely on estimates; in fact, the second item
(exempt activities) reflects a considerable degree of conjecture on the author’s part,
absent any generally agreed-upon estimates by academic and other experts. Those
figures could, in fact, considerably understate the actual spending involved. In
contrast, the third figure–party non-federal transfers–is an official FEC number,
because party soft money, unique among the three major soft money categories, is
fully disclosed. However, while the number is more solidly based than the previous
two, its inclusion in the overall soft money estimate undoubtedly contributes to an
inflation of the overall total, as it is likely that a substantial amount of soft money
transferred to state and local parties is then spent on issue advocacy. The likelihood
of double-counting resulting from this, however, may well be offset by the estimates
in the issue advocacy and exempt activity categories, which likely err on the
conservative side.
No aspect of the financing of the 2000 federal elections engenders so much
controversy and confusion as the soft money activities. It is that confusion and the
relevance of the soft money issue to the public policy debate that prompts this attempt
to estimate its value, despite the many pitfalls involved. The double-counting
resulting from state party transfers referred to above is just one of those pitfalls. An

CRS-3
even more fundamental one is the nature of using estimates and conjecture from a
variety of sources, with the attendant potential for magnifying errors in any resulting
grand total.
A third caveat deserves particular mention here, involving the impressions one
can draw from taking the “big picture” view. The soft money estimates in this report
suggest that non-federally-regulated money comprised roughly one-fourth of the
money spent to influence the 2000 federal elections. That is a considerable share, but
it does not support the view that non-candidate and non-regulated funding is coming
to dominate the financing of today’s elections. But one recent study provides
substantial evidence that the outside money tends to be heavily concentrated in a
relatively small number of targeted, competitive races, where their investment can
have a more substantial payoff.2
This February 2001 study by the Center for the Study of Elections and
Democracy at Brigham Young University is significant because of the intensive
scrutiny it devoted to 17 competitive House and Senate races, compiling data from
on-site monitoring of television and radio ads, direct mail, and telephone and personal
contacts utilized by candidates, parties, and interest groups. The actual monitoring
of communications was augmented by extensive interviews with nearly all the major
players, as well as by other media tracking and other sources. This most complete,
intensive look to date at the whole gamut of activities involved in today’s federal
elections concluded that spending by political parties and interest groups typically
equals the level spent by the candidates’ own campaign organizations, at least in
highly competitive races. As the study noted:
Competitive congressional elections have seen a dramatic change in campaign
communications since 1996. Non-candidate campaign spending–party soft money,
election issue advocacy, independent expenditures, and internal communications
in organizations–now rivals and often exceeds candidate spending in these
contests. These outside money campaigns use all modes of communication, almost
always involve campaign professionals, and are concentrated in competitive races.
The candidates in these contests generally spend record-setting amounts of hard
money on their own campaigns.3
What this and other close examinations suggest is that the big picture overview
may mask important developments in today’s elections. To fully understand the flow
of money in contemporary elections, one must examine not only the aggregate data
and overall trends, affecting all races, as this report does, but also the most
competitive races, whose outcome is critical in determining which party controls the
House, the Senate, and the Presidency. The latter examination is important because
in any election year, the outcomes of most House races, and to a lesser extent Senate
races, are not a matter of any appreciable doubt prior to the election, due to strong
party or incumbency advantages in most races. Hence, interest groups and parties
2 Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (Brigham Young University). Election
Advocacy: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2000 Congressional Elections, David B.
Magleby, ed. (2001). [http://www.byu.edu/outsidemoney/2000general/index.htm]
3 Ibid., p. 5.

CRS-4
tend to concentrate their resources in a relatively small number of elections. The big
picture view alone may greatly understate the importance of their activities in shaping
the larger outcome, in terms of party control of Congress and the White House.
Hence, in taking the big picture look at money in the 2000 elections, the present
study does not tell the complete story, and the reader would be well advised to
consult the additional sources cited herein as well.
Methodology and Organization of Report
Figure. Figure 1 displays the “big picture” of the flow of money and the major
players in contemporary federal elections.
Rectangles. These represent the major sources of funds and spending agents
in elections, including individual citizens, political action committees (PACs), political
parties, candidates’ campaign organizations, the U.S. Treasury (for public funding in
presidential elections), candidates’ personal funds, and interest groups (corporations,
unions, trade associations, etc.).
Ovals. These represent the six forms of spending which, in all but one case,
finance direct communications with the electorate (or portions thereof). These
include all candidate activity and communications, independent expenditures,
coordinated expenditures, issue advocacy, and exempt activities to members of unions
and corporations. The sixth form, transfers to state parties, involves very substantial
sums of money, but is not itself a form of communication with the electorate, but
rather an intermediate step in that process.
Lines and Arrows. These represent the actual flow of money, whether
donations to agents which will in turn spend it for voter communications or
disbursements directly for such communications.
! Heavy, solid lines. These represent expenditures or disbursements for voter
communications.
! Light, solid lines. These represent contributions, donations, or transfers of
money to intermediate agents, who, in turn, will spend it for voter
communications.
! Broken line. This represents overhead costs (administration and fundraising)
of separate segregated funds (PACs) sponsored by unions or corporations.
The figure and the accompanying discussion do not purport to encompass all
activities and avenues of financing elections. Activities which had a less direct impact
or role on communicating with the electorate were excluded. Inclusion of the full
extent of activities and transactions would detract from the desired simplicity of
presentation. Because of that and a need to focus on those areas of greatest interest
to policymakers, the figure conveys the major players and activities only.4
4 Among the activities or transactions omitted are: U.S. Treasury subsidies to parties for
presidential nominating conventions; the substantial sum of PAC money that is spent on
neither contributions nor independent expenditures, but rather on fundraising and overhead
(continued...)

CRS-5
Discussion. The text that accompanies figure 1 explains what is known about
the flow of money in the 2000 federal elections. While it focuses on presenting
available data or estimates, it also provides an explanation, where appropriate, of the
context of the particular activity or participant. On the hard money side, data were
provided (except where noted) by the Federal Election Commission’s Data Systems
Division during the last week of February and first two weeks of March 2001. On the
soft money side, there are no disclosure requirements in all categories and certainly not
in any uniform manner. Hence the data reflect available estimates, scholarly studies,
discussions with campaign finance experts, and the author’s best judgment. Such a
methodology was necessitated by the absence of required disclosure in most of the soft
money categories.
There are three sections of this report, each focusing on an arena of activity,
whether hard money, soft money, or mixed (hard and soft money). Each of these
sections is arranged by participant, and under each participant, by what is known about
receipts and sources, contributions made, and disbursements of funds on voter
communications.
Because of the organizational structure of this report, certain data are presented
in each of two different sections, once as a contribution to a particular source, listed
under the type of donor, and again as a receipt from that donor, listed under the type
of recipient.
4(...continued)
costs (especially relevant to unaffiliated PACs); party nominating conventions’ host committee
spending; state and local party spending on activities that indirectly benefit federal candidates;
and independent expenditures by individuals (a rare occurrence).

CRS-6

CRS-7
Hard Money
The focus of hard money activity is on the candidates for office, through their
principal campaign committees. Most spending on the hard money side emanates
from the candidate committees. But parties and PACs also engage in some spending
aimed directly at the electorate. Candidate committees are funded by five main
sources: individual citizens contributing directly to candidates are the most important
source; PACs and political parties are, respectively, the second and third largest
source of candidate funds; candidates’ own resources (through donations and loans
from personal and immediate family funds) may play an important role in some races;
and public funding is available in presidential elections to participating candidates
through the U.S. Treasury.
Individual citizens
Individual citizens, giving money directly, are by far the largest source of
contributions to federal candidates, political action committees, and political parties.

Contributions.
To Candidates. According to the FEC, individuals contributed $822.3 million
to candidates for federal office in the 2000 election cycle. This included $255.1
million to presidential candidates, $252.2 million to Senate candidates, and $315
million to House candidates.
To PACs. According to the FEC, individuals contributed $557.6 million to
political action committees in the 2000 election cycle.
To Political Parties–Federal Accounts. According to the FEC,
individuals contributed $712.4 million to federal accounts of political parties (at the
national, state, and local levels) in the 2000 election cycle.
PACs
The term political action committee is colloquial and comprises two types of
committees as defined in law: either a separate segregated fund, if it is sponsored by
an organization, or a political committee, if it is not.
Of the 3,907 PACs registered with the FEC at the end of 2000, 74% were
separate segregated funds. Such a fund is essentially a bookkeeping arrangement,
wherein an organization prohibited by law from using its treasury funds for direct
campaign donations pays the administrative and fundraising costs of a separate entity,
that, in turn, seeks voluntary contributions from its members for expressly political
purposes. Organizations that maintain such funds include unions, corporations, trade
and health associations, membership groups, cooperatives, and corporations without
capital stock.
The remaining 26% of today’s PACs are not sponsored by organizations and do
not constitute separate segregated funds. These PACs, referred to as nonconnected

CRS-8
by the FEC, are organized merely by meeting the law’s definition of political
committee—a group that raises or spends $1,000 or more in a year. Unlike separate
segregated funds, these PACs are not required to limit fundraising appeals to specified
persons; however, nonconnected PACs must pay their administrative and fundraising
expenses out of contributions, lacking sponsors to underwrite these costs. The
nonconnected PACs largely comprise ideological and single-issue groups.
According to the FEC, PACs raised $619 million in the 2000 election cycle.5
Receipts.
From interest groups. This refers to the overhead costs related to a separate
segregated fund, i.e., a PAC sponsored by a union or corporation; as noted, this
category comprised 76% of all PACs. Costs include those associated with fundraising
and administration. Federal election law does not require that these expenses be
disclosed, and there are no available estimates. While all receipts of non-connected
PACs are reported, fundraising and administrative costs are paid out of those receipts.
For sponsored PACs, those costs are paid by the sponsor; hence all PAC receipts may
be used for election advocacy.
From individuals. According to the FEC, individuals contributed $557.6
million to political action committees in the 2000 election cycle.
Contributions.
To candidates. According to the FEC, PACs contributed $246.7 million to
candidates for federal office in the 2000 election cycle, including $2.5 million to
presidential candidates, $50.2 million to Senate candidates, and $194.0 million to
House candidates.
To political parties–federal accounts. According to the FEC, PACs
contributed $28.7 million to federal accounts of political parties (at the national, state,
and local levels) in the 2000 election cycle.
Expenditures.
Independent Expenditures. Federal law recognizes a particular type of
campaign expenditure, wherein an individual or group communicates a message to
voters without coordination with any candidate. 2 U.S.C. § 431(17) defines
independent expenditure as an expenditure:
by a person expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
which is made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or any authorized
committee or agent of such candidate, and which is not made in concert with, or at the
request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such
candidate.
5 This figure does not include any overhead costs absorbed by sponsors of segregated funds,
for which there are no data or estimates.

CRS-9
Such expenditures have typically been undertaken by a small number of PACs to
support or oppose candidates to a greater extent than permitted by the contribution
limits. Because independent expenditures use express advocacy, hard money is
required, but this should not be confused with issue advocacy. As an expenditure
–and not a contribution–total spending is not limited, based on the Buckley v. Valeo
ruling.
According to the FEC, PACs made $20.6 million in independent expenditures
in the 2000 election cycle, including $5.9 million for or against presidential candidates,
$7.0 million for or against Senate candidates, and $7.7 million for or against House
candidates.
U.S. Treasury
Since 1976, candidates for President have been able to receive public funding in
their campaigns, on a voluntary basis, conditioned on their agreement to specified
limits on campaign expenditures. Financed through a checkoff on federal tax returns,
funding is available to primary and general election candidates, as well as to political
parties for their quadrennial nominating conventions.
In 2000, eligibility for matching funds in the pre-nomination phase was subject
to acceptance of a nationwide spending limit of $33.8 million, plus $6.8 million for
fundraising, and to raising a threshold level of small donations. In the general
election, the spending limit was $67.6 million, with major party candidates eligible for
public funds equal to the limit, and minor party candidates who met established
criteria eligible for an amount proportionate to the vote received in prior elections.
Subsidies.
To candidates. According to the FEC, candidates for President received
$208.4 million in public funds for their primary and general election campaigns in the
2000 election cycle. This included $60.7 million to 10 primary candidates ($25.7
million to four Republicans, $29.3 million to three Democrats, and $5.7 million to
three minor party candidates) and $147.7 million to three general election nominees
($67.6 million each to Bush and Gore and $12.6 to Buchanan, of the Reform Party).6
Candidates (From Personal Funds)
While the vast majority of candidates do not contribute substantial amounts to
their own campaigns, there is a relatively small number of candidates who do make
substantial contributions or loans from personal wealth in any election. While some
of these loans are eventually repaid, much of the loan money is never repaid. Data
here reflect contributions and loans that have as yet not been repaid.
6 $29.5 million in public funds were also provided to parties for nominating conventions
($13.5 each to the Democrats and Republicans and $2.5 to the Reform Party). These figures
are not reflected in this study.

CRS-10
Contributions/Loans.
To candidates. According to the FEC, candidates gave or loaned their
campaigns $194.7 million from personal and immediate family funds in the 2000
election cycle. This included $40.1 million from presidential candidates, $102.1
million from Senate candidates, and $52.5 million from House candidates.
Political Parties – Federal Accounts
According to the FEC, federal accounts of political party committees raised $850
million in the 2000 election cycle.
Receipts.
From individuals. According to the FEC, individuals contributed $712.4
million to federal accounts of political parties (at the national, state, and local levels)
in the 2000 election cycle.
From PACs. According to the FEC, PACs contributed $28.7 million to federal
accounts of political parties (at the national, state, and local levels) in the 2000
election cycle.
Contributions/Transfers.
To candidates. According to the FEC, political parties contributed $3.7
million to federal candidates in the 2000 election cycle. This included $ .9 million to
Senate candidates and $2.8 million to House candidates.
To state parties (transfers). According to the FEC, $132.5 million was
transferred from the national party federal accounts to those of state and local political
parties.
Expenditures/Disbursements.
Independent Expenditures. In Colorado Republican Federal Campaign
Committee v. Federal Election Commission [116 S. Ct. 2309 (1996)], the Supreme
Court ruled that parties, like PACs and others, may engage in this form of spending.
According to the FEC, political parties made $5.0 million in independent
expenditures for or against federal candidates in the 2000 election cycle. This
included $1.7 million for or against presidential candidates, $.6 million for or against
Senate candidates, and $2.7 million for or against House candidates.
Coordinated Expenditures. Aside from direct contributions, national and
state party committees may make coordinated expenditures on behalf of their general
election nominees, subject to limits (adjusted for inflation every two years). In 2000,
parties could spend $33,780 in House races in multi-district states, $67,560 in House
races in single-district states, and from $67,560 to $1.6 million in Senate races
(depending on population). Those amounts were doubled, in effect, by the ability of

CRS-11
state parties to designate the national committee as its expenditure agent in House and
Senate races. In 2000, each party could spend $13.7 million in the 2000 presidential
race.
According to the FEC, parties made $50.7 million in coordinated expenditures
on behalf of their candidates for federal office in the 2000 general elections. This
included $26.2 million on behalf of presidential candidates, $15.9 million on behalf of
Senate candidates, and $8.6 million on behalf of House candidates.
Issue Advocacy. For a discussion of party issue advocacy, see the section in
this report on Hard and Soft Money: Mixed Activities; Political Parties–Federal and
Non-federal Accounts (p.17). Because of different allocation rules for national versus
state and local parties and the uncertainty about which of these entities financed the
various party ads, no attempt is made here to estimate the hard and soft money shares
of this overall estimate.
Candidates
Receipts.
From individuals. According to the FEC, individuals contributed $822.3
million to candidates for federal office in the 2000 election cycle. This included
$255.1 million to presidential candidates, $252.2 million to Senate candidates, and
$315 million to House candidates).
From PACs. According to the FEC, PACs contributed $246.7 million to
candidates for federal office in the 2000 election cycle. This included $2.5 million to
presidential candidates, $50.2 million to Senate candidates, and $194.0 million to
House candidates.
From U.S. Treasury. According to the FEC, candidates for President
received $208.4 million in public funds for their primary and general election
campaigns in the 2000 election cycle. This included $60.7 million to 10 primary
candidates ($25.7 million to four Republicans, $29.3 million to three Democrats, and
$5.7 million to three minor party candidates) and $147.7 million to three general
election nominees ($67.6 million each to Bush and Gore and $12.6 to Buchanan, of
the Reform Party).
From candidates’ personal funds. According to the FEC, candidates gave
or loaned their campaigns $194.7 million from personal and immediate family funds
in the 2000 election cycle. This included $40.1 million from presidential candidates,
$102.1 million from Senate candidates, and $52.5 million from House candidates.
From political parties. According to the FEC, political parties contributed
$3.7 million to federal candidates in the 2000 election cycle. This included $ .9
million to Senate candidates and $2.8 million to House candidates.

CRS-12
Expenditures.
For all candidate activity and communications. According to the FEC,
candidates for federal office spent $1,609.9 million in the 2000 election cycle. This
included $605.1 million by presidential candidates, $434.4 million by Senate
candidates, and $570.4 million by House candidates.
Soft Money
Although union and corporate money has long been prohibited directly in federal
elections, three methods have evolved through which union and corporate treasury
money may affect federal elections in less direct but arguably effective ways. These
disbursements are allowed because they are aimed (at least nominally) at non-federal
races (as donations to parties), at restricted classes (as exempt activities), or at the
public, but without express advocacy language (as issue advocacy). While
corporations and labor unions are the dominant participants in the soft money arena,
individuals and parties also play key roles.
Individual Citizens
Donations.
To political parties–non-federal accounts. According to the FEC,
individual citizens donated $177.3 million to the non-federal accounts of national
political party committees in the 2000 election cycle.
Political Parties–Non-federal Accounts
According to the FEC, non-federal accounts of political parties raised $495
million in the 2000 election cycle.
Receipts.
From individuals. According to the FEC, individual citizens donated $177.3
million to the non-federal accounts of national political party committees in the 2000
election cycle.
From interest groups. According to the FEC, entities other than individual
citizens donated $317.7 million to the non-federal accounts of national political party
committees in the 2000 election cycle. This primarily comprised donations from
corporations, labor unions, and trade associations.
Transfers.
To state parties. According to the FEC, $274.2 million was transferred from
national party non-federal accounts to the non-federal accounts of affiliated party
committees at the state and local levels in the 2000 election cycle.

CRS-13
Disbursements.
Issue Advocacy. For a discussion of party issue advocacy, see the section
in this report on Hard and Soft Money: Mixed Activities; Political Parties–Federal
and Non-federal Accounts (p. 17). Because of the different allocation rules for
national versus state and local parties and the uncertainty about which of these entities
financed the various party ads, no attempt is made here to estimate the hard and soft
money shares of this overall estimate.
Interest Groups
Donations.
To political parties–non-federal accounts. According to the FEC,
entities other than individual citizens donated $317.7 million to the non-federal
accounts of national political party committees in the 2000 election cycle . This
primarily comprised donations from corporations, labor unions, and trade
associations.
Disbursements.
Issue Advocacy. Several sources are available which can serve as the basis
for an overall estimate of election-related issue advocacy spending by interest groups
in 2000. One is the study on political advertising by the Campaign Media Analysis
Group (CMAG), for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University (NYU)
Law School. Using satellite technology, the CMAG monitored political advertising
on television in the nation’s top 75 markets, reaching over 80% of the U.S.
population, between June 1 and November 7, 2000. They found that $56.5 million
was spent by interest groups during this period, including $16.1 million relating to
presidential candidates, $10.6 million to Senate candidates, and $29.8 million to
House candidates.7
The Brennan Center’s interest group data are limited by their inclusion of
television only; while that may well have been the principle medium used, radio, print
ads, direct mail, and phone banks were also used by interest groups in issue advocacy.
The Brigham Young study, in fact, concluded:
A focus on soft money and issue advertising that only catalogs broadcast ads
misses much of the story. In 2000, as in 1998, candidates interest groups, and the
political parties waged an intense ground war through mail, telephone calls, and
person-to-person contact.8
7 Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law. 2000 Presidential Race
First in Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More on TV Ads than Candidates,
press release, Dec. 11, 2000. [http://brennancenter.org/tvads2000.html].
8 Magleby, Election Advocacy: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2000 Congressional
Elections, p. 3.

CRS-14
Even the TV data probably understate the extent of broadcast issue advertising
alone. First, the data do not reflect spending on TV ads reaching the remaining 20%
of the U.S. population. Second, the data do not reflect costs of producing or placing
the ads. Finally, the data assign a dollar value for ads based on the candidate rate,
whereas interest groups (and parties) are not eligible for the lowest unite rate
discount.9
While the $57 million figure may be the most precise one available, scholars who
have examined this issue believe that it considerably understates the actual level of
spending. In a report by the Task Force on Disclosure of the Campaign Finance
Institute (a public policy organization established in 2000 to attempt consensus
recommendations on changes in the nation’s campaign finance laws), these experts
concluded:
Undisclosed election related communications represent a large, and rapidly
growing, part of the election scene. If you add up what the major groups were
doing in media advertising, direct mail and telephone banks in 2000, without
public disclosure, the documented total has to be substantially more than $57
million, which is the amount the Brennan Center catalogued for radio [sic] and TV
advertising in major media markets alone. For all we know, the amount could
well double that, once direct mail, phone banks and other activities across the
whole country are included [emphasis added]. Whatever the exact figure, it is
clear that the order of magnitude of these undisclosed communications puts them
in a league that rival the amount raised and spent by any one of the four
Democratic or Republican major party congressional campaign committees – and
the party committee numbers include administrative overhead and fundraising
costs. These undisclosed interest group communications are major forces in U.S.
elections, not little oddities or blips on the screen.10
In a press conference announcing this study, political scientist Anthony Corrado, a co-
chair of the Institute, asserted that the actual value of interest group issue advocacy
related to elections “could easily push $100 million.”11
The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania has
tracked issue advocacy since the 1996 election, and, for 2000, it estimated that $509
million was spent by parties and interest groups.12 While the usefulness of these data
are limited by coverage of the full two-year period and the lack of differentiation
9 Furthermore, even candidate rates have not been suppressed as originally intended by the
lowest unit rate rule, according to a recent study of political broadcast costs. See: Alliance
for Better Campaigns, Gouging Democracy: How the Television Industry Profiteered on
Campaign 2000. Mar. 6, 2001 [http://www.bettercampaigns.org/Doldisc/gouging.htm]
10 Campaign Finance Institute, Task Force on Disclosure, Issue Ad Disclosure:
Recommendations for a New Approach (Washington: February 2001), p. 6.
[http://64.14.117.231/issue_ads_toc.htm]
11 Anthony Corrado, press conference remarks, Willard Hotel, Washington, Feb. 22, 2001.
12 Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, Annenerg Public Policy
Center Tracks Over $509 Million in Reported Expenditures on Issue Advocacy, press
release, Feb. 1, 2001. [http://appcpenn.org/issueads/index.html]; see report.

CRS-15
between campaign-related and non-campaign-related advertising, the Annenberg
study contains some CMAG data for March 8 (Super Tuesday) through the general
election date, a longer period than that covered by the Brennan Center. During this
period, $248 million was spent on TV ads in the top 75 markets, $156 million by the
parties and $92 million by interest groups. While the longer period increases the
chances that non-election-related advertising is included, the figure understates the
rates charged to interest groups and the cost of reaching 100% of the TV audience.
Thus, while there are limitations to the Annenberg data, taken with other estimates,
they suggest greater likelihood that the interest role could be fairly valued at over
$100 million.
One additional useful source in estimating interest group issue advocacy (and
available for the first time) concerns political organizations with section 527 tax-
exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code (“527 organizations”). The express
purpose of these groups is to influence elections, but, because many do not use
express advocacy in their communications, they have been unregulated by federal
election law. In 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-230, requiring such groups
not disclosing financial activity to the FEC to make periodic reports to the Internal
Revenue Service. The law took effect on July 1, 2000 and required disclosure of
relevant information after that date.
The Associated Press (AP) compiled data on 527 organization filings by more
than 1,800 groups that reported spending money between July 1 and late October
2000; their computer analysis showed a total of $132.6 million spent during that
period.13 While this figure does not take into account spending right up to the
November 7 election (the last weeks invariably involving high spending), it includes
spending by groups that focused their activities at state and local, not national, levels.
There are two key differences between the data sources in this area. First, not
all interest group issue advocacy was conducted by 527 organizations; many
501(c)(4) tax-exempt groups and others were known to have conducted issue
advocacy campaigns in 2000. Second, the official 527 organization disclosure reports
reflect all spending by the groups involved, whereas the other studies were confined
to TV advertising. The inclusion of all activity in the 527 organization reports make
them more comparable to the data for parties and candidates, which also include
overhead, fundraising costs, etc. Taken together, with an understanding of the
strengths and limitations of each, they help justify an estimate that issue advocacy
spending related to the 2000 federal elections likely exceeded $100 million, and
probably by a significant margin. In fact, only the uncertainty over how much of the
$132.6 million reported by the AP was state and local related makes one hesitant to
suggest that it may well have approached $150 million (given that the $132.6 million
did not include the final weeks of the election).
Based on an examination of the findings of these studies and commentary from
reputable experts, it can thus be estimated conservatively that interest groups’ issue
advocacy spending totaled between $100 and $150 million in 2000.
13 John Solomon, Tax-Exempt Groups Inject over $130 Million into Elections, Associated
Press, Nov. 3, 2000.

CRS-16
Exempt Activities to Members. While banning direct corporate and union
money in federal elections, 2 U.S.C.§ 441b(b)(2) exempts three types of spending
from its contribution and expenditure definitions, if aimed only at certain “restricted
classes”: for a union, its members, officials, and families; for a corporation, its
executive and administrative personnel, stockholders, and families. The exempt
activities are: establishing, administering, and soliciting money for a PAC; get-out-the-
vote and registration drives; and internal communications on any subject.
Communications with restricted classes may involve express advocacy, which is
permitted only because of the limited, affiliated audiences receiving the messages.
Absent solid data, it is generally believed that exempt activities are a more
important tool for unions than for corporations, even though corporations have the
same rights as unions in all soft money activities. Not only do unions have a
restricted class that included some 16.3 million union members and their families in
2000,14 but they have a ready infrastructure (phone banks, office space, etc.) and
volunteer pool to make their internal communications and voter drives an especially
potent force in mobilizing their base of support.15
As exempt activities, sources and recipients of union and corporate funds are
generally not disclosed. The one exception is for internal express advocacy
communications, but only when they exceed $2,000 per candidate per election;
furthermore, communications primarily devoted to other subjects are excluded.16
According to the FEC, some $17.25 million in internal communications with restricted
classes was reported for the 2000 election cycle; over $13 million of that was by labor
unions.
While unions must file annual financial reports under the Labor Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 519), these reports are arranged by
type of expenditure (e.g., salaries, administrative costs) rather than by functional
category (e.g., contract negotiation and administration, political activities). In 1992,
under President Bush, the Department of Labor proposed regulations to require
classification of reported spending data by functional category.17 In a proposed
rulemaking notice of September 23, 1993, the department, under President Clinton,
rescinded the change to functional categories.18
Due to the limits of public disclosure, one must look to estimates of the total
value of labor soft money. Few appear willing to even make such estimates, which
amount to educated guesses, such as a $56 million estimate for the 1992 presidential
14U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bur. of Labor Stats., Employment and Earnings, Jan. 2001.
15 A corporations’ stockholders, in contrast, while a large group, lack the proximity to the
corporate structure that union members have with their unions, making the corporate restricted
classes far less easily or effectively mobilized.
1611 C.F.R.§100.8(b)(4) and 104.6.
17U.S. Dep. of Labor, “Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports,” Federal Register, vol.
57, Oct. 30, 1992, p. 49282.
18U.S. Dept. of Labor, “Labor Organization Annual Financial Reports,” Federal Register,
vol. 58, Dec. 21, 1993, p. 67595.

CRS-17
election by campaign finance scholar Herbert Alexander.19 Estimates may also be
influenced by the observer’s political orientation, as seen in the disparity between the
$70 million claimed by union leaders20 and the $300-$500 million critics estimate21 as
the value for total labor soft money in a presidential election year.
Undoubtedly, the $17.25 million reported to the FEC for internal
communications (one of the major components of the exempt activities) greatly
understates the total level of union and corporate spending on election activities aimed
at their restricted classes. Estimates of the value of union activity (the predominant
component here) in a presidential election year have ranged anywhere from tens of
millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. To a great extent, the real value of this
activity may be unknowable, even with enhanced disclosure requirements, as much
of it may not be easily quantified (e.g., the value of volunteer time). In truth, no
estimate has gained any kind of consensus or credibility as even a proximate dollar
figure in this area. Thus, determining the value of labor/corporate exempt activities
remains perhaps the most elusive goal in estimating a total for all three types of soft
money activity that affect contemporary elections.
If pressed for a dollar figure, one might suggest $100 million as a conservative
estimate of actual dollars spent, but this would not reflect the value of volunteer
services. The safety of this estimate appears bolstered by the $57 million estimate for
1992 by Professor Alexander, abundant evidence of increased labor activity since
then, and the evidence reported in the recent Brigham Young University study that
the Chamber of Commerce had devoted much of its $15 million campaign budget to
this area in 2000.22 The figure could conceivably be well more than $100 million, but
it seems highly unlikely, based on all available data, evidence, and anecdotal
information, that it was any less.
19Herbert E. Alexander and Anthony Corrado, Financing the 1992 Election (Armonk NY:
M.E. Sharpe, 1995), pp. 20, 115.
20 John Mintz, “McCain’s ‘Soft Money’ Pledge Alarms GOP,” Washington Post, Feb. 22,
2000, p. A6.
21Estimates by Prof. Leo Troy, Rutgers Univ. ($300-$500 million) and Reed Larsen, National
Right To Work Comm. ($410 million), in: U.S. Congress, House Oversight Committee,
Influencing Elections: Political Activity of Labor Unions, hearings, 104th Cong., 2nd sess.,
Mar. 19, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1996), pp. 32, 36.
22 Magleby, Election Advocacy: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2000 Congressional
Elections, p. 39.

CRS-18
Hard and Soft Money: Mixed Activities
Political Parties–Federal and Non-federal Accounts
Disbursements.
Issue Advocacy. Issue advocacy communications may be made by political
parties, using a mixture of hard and soft money.23 Under FEC Advisory Opinion
1995-25, 65% of the cost of such communications by a national party committee in
a presidential election year must be derived from hard money, with soft money making
up the remaining 35%. (In a non-presidential election year, 60% of the cost must be
paid with hard money, with the remaining 40% from soft money. For their issue
advertising, state and local parties must use the same allocation formula–the ballot
composition method–used for administrative and generic activities.) While national
party committees disclose receipts and disbursements from both federal (hard) and
non-federal (soft) accounts, disbursements are not identified as issue advocacy per se,
making any aggregation difficult using FEC disclosure reports.
The best available data on television political advertising in the 2000 elections
was compiled by the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), in a study for the
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, as cited earlier in this report. Using
satellite technology, the CMAG monitored political advertising on television in the
nation’s top 75 markets, reaching over 80% of the U.S. population, between June 1
and November 7, 2000. They found that $158.6 million was spent by political parties
on TV advertising during this period, including $79.9 relating to presidential
candidates, $39.2 million relating to Senate candidates, and $39.5 million relating to
House candidates.24
Although the $158.6 million is the best available figure on party advertising on
television, its usefulness for the purposes of this report is limited by several factors.
First and foremost, there is no way of knowing to what extent those advertisements
were issue ads as opposed to express advocacy ads; the latter could have been made
as party coordinated expenditures. FEC data note that parties spent $50.7 million on
coordinated expenditures for their general election nominees in 2000. While the
CMAG study’s author stated his belief that the vast majority of party spending was
on issue ads, it is conceivable that as little as $107.9 million ($158.6 million minus
$50.7 million) or as much as $158.6 million was spent on parties’ TV issue ads.
Other factors limiting the reliability of these data include the coverage of
television only, as radio, print ads, direct mail, and phone banks were likely used by
parties in issue advocacy. Furthermore, as noted earlier in this report, the data do not
reflect spending on even TV ads reaching the remaining 20% of the U.S. population;
23 Because of different allocation rules for national versus state and local parties and
uncertainty about which of these entities financed the various party ads, no attempt is made
here to estimate the hard and soft money shares of this overall estimate.)
24 Brennan Center, 2000 Presidential Race First in Modern History Where Political Parties
Spend More on TV Ads than Candidates.

CRS-19
nor do they reflect costs of producing or placing TV ads. Finally, the data assign a
dollar value for ads based on the candidate rate, and parties are not eligible for the
lowest unite rate discount. For these reasons, any estimate based on the Brennan
Center/CMAG study probably understate the extent of party issue advertising.
Thus, in estimating spending by parties of between $107.9 and $158.6 million,
this report may well err on the conservative side.
Conclusion
This section restates some principal findings of this report regarding the spending
of money to influence. Corresponding to the oval figures on Figure 1, they reflect the
five categories of spending and party transfers, which constitute an intermediate step
in the spending of money.
All Candidate Activity and Communications
According to the FEC, candidates for federal office spent $1,609.9 million in the
2000 election cycle. This included $605.1 million by presidential candidates, $434.4
million by Senate candidates, and $570.4 million by House candidates.
Independent Expenditures
According to FEC data, $25.6 million was spent on independent expenditures
in the 2000 federal elections. This included $20.6 million spent by PACs (comprised
of $5.9 million for or against presidential candidates, $7.0 million for or against
Senate candidates, and $7.7 million for or against House candidates). It also included
$5.0 million spent by political parties (comprised of $1.7 million for or against
presidential candidates, $.6 million for or against Senate candidates, and $2.7 million
for or against House candidates).
Coordinated Expenditures
According to the FEC, political parties made $50.7 million in coordinated
expenditures on behalf of their federal candidates in the 2000 general elections. This
included $26.2 million on behalf of presidential candidates, $15.9 million on behalf of
Senate candidates, and $8.6 million on behalf of House candidates.
Party Transfers
According to the FEC, $406.7 million was transferred from national to state and
local political party committees in the 2000 election cycle, including $132.5 million
within federal accounts and $274.2 million within non-federal accounts.
Issue Advocacy (Election-related)
Based on an examination of available data, studies, and commentary, it is
estimated that between $207.9 million and $308.6 million was spent on election-

CRS-20
related issue advocacy in the 2000 elections. This includes an estimated $107.9 -
$158.6 million spent by parties and $100 - $150 million spent by interest groups.
Exempt Activities Aimed at Members
To a great extent, the real value of this activity may be unknowable, even with
enhanced disclosure requirements, as much of it may not be easily quantified (e.g., the
value of volunteer time). In truth, no estimate has gained any kind of consensus or
credibility as even a proximate dollar figure in this area. Thus, the labor/corporate
exempt activities remain the most inestimable of all three of the soft money categories
of activity that affect contemporary elections. If pressed for a dollar figure, this report
suggests $100 million as a conservative estimate on actual dollars spent; while it may
conceivably be much higher, there is little reason to believe it might have been any
lower.