Eliza Newlin Carney has written this cover story for the National Journal. It begins: “When Congress passed the McCain-Feingold law in 2002, political experts were remarkably unanimous about what would happen once soft money — the large, unregulated contributions that were paying for the bulk of federal elections — was banned. The political parties would be strapped for cash. Outside interest groups and wealthy individuals would dominate campaigns. And the voices of parties and candidates would be drowned out. If anything, the opposite has occurred. In this election, the first midterm since the law took effect, the parties appear poised to play an unprecedented role. Challengers and incumbents have raised record sums and, in competitive races, are surprisingly evenly matched. Outside groups are active, but not as well-funded as they were in the 2004 presidential campaign. And overall spending could hit $2.6 billion, substantially more than the $2.2 billion spent in the last midterm, when soft money dominated.”
I must say I have to disagree with the premise of this piece. I think there was–and is–far from unanimity on the question whether BCRA would hurt the parties.