Democrats countered with $3 million in equally untraceable cash on TV ads saying Republican Lindsey Graham wanted to gamble Social Security on risky investments in stocks such as Enron.

Now, after the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the "McCain-Feingold" law limiting campaign spending is constitutional, these kinds of ads could be outdated. Campaigns could be cleaner, if everyone follows the rules.

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the law's restrictions on political advertising by independent special interest groups. These ads often are coordinated with the two major political parties.

This kind of advertising falls under the "soft money" category of political cash, which is money spent on a candidate's behalf by a friendly group without much accountability. "Hard money" goes directly into a candidate's campaign account and is traceable to a donor.

Under the law upheld by the court, special interest TV advertising must be funded by hard money if aired less than 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary.

The result, said Celia Wexler, of the open government advocacy group Common Cause in Washington, D.C., is that fewer clandestine attack ads are likely to appear in the days closest to an election in South Carolina.

"Other groups can run these ads right up to the election, but they will have to use money from legally reportable sources," she said.

The change is good for South Carolina voters because they won't be bombarded with confusing messages right before an election, Wexler said. She added that the winner in a race "won't owe his soul to a couple of huge donors."

The rule probably won't affect the state's six congressional races next year. These rarely are competitive because of the power of incumbency and the state's widespread TV markets.

It likely will be a major factor in next year's race for Democrat Fritz Hollings' soon-to-be-open U.S. Senate seat. Republicans are hoping to pick up the seat in a race that is receiving scrutiny from the White House and the Republican National Committee.

Reaction to the court's decision by South Carolina's congressional delegation was limited. U.S. 1st District Rep. Henry Brown of Hanahan, R-S.C., voted against the bill, saying it limited free speech. U.S. 6th District Rep. Jim Clyburn of Columbia, D-S.C., voted for it.

"I am in general agreement with the court. The decision confirms my vote," Clyburn said Thursday.

Graham supported the bill in the House of Representatives before being elected to the Senate.

The ruling "reaffirms my belief that money is property, not speech," he said. "The practice of attacking political candidates from the shadows without any accountability is over."

Hollings voted for the bill, known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which was pushed through the Senate by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

But Hollings said Thursday that the parties already have pursued loopholes and that the law needs strengthening.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/121203/loc_12finance.shtml