`Soft money' mecca.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Financed by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a new study by the Institute on Money in State Politics shows that between 1998 and 2002, the Republican and Democratic parties of Oregon raked in a whopping $24.5 million in now-banned "soft money" from the national political parties.

The state parties mostly spent the money on so-called "issue ads," which are supposed to be about public policy matters, but in fact often were indirect means of supporting or opposing specific candidates.

Soft money is the term given to the previously unlimited campaign contributions funneled into political parties. Under the law as it stood before last year's approval of the federal McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law - sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. - soft money was supposed to be spent only on such things as party-building and issue ads, not on candidates or specific campaigns.

The new law was badly needed to level the political playing field and to reduce the often corruptive influence of money in American politics. Predictably, the law is now under legal challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a case challenging the law as an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

Much of the national parties' soft money flowed into the state because Oregon was perceived as a battleground state in the hotly contested, and still controversial, 2000 presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore. More than half of the money received by Oregon's two major parties during the four-year period - $13.5 million - came in during the 2000 election year. Next year may bring a similarly hard-fought presidential election campaign, and a similar gusher of soft-money-funded issue ads if the McCain-Feingold law is stricken down.

Even with McCain-Feingold, money still dominates election campaigns. It defines viable candidates, while its absence defines also-rans. Soft-money advertising, which often conceals its deeply partisan purposes, can be especially insidious, creating unseen obligations between politicians and donors. In a four-year period, the major political parties spent $7 in soft money on each man, woman and child in Oregon. Banning such spending is a step forward - even though campaign spending will continue, the sources and beneficiaries will be more clearly identified.