Many folks seem to think BCRA (McCain/Feingold) has failed because it hasn't taken any money out of politics. But they're missing an interesting point:
This has been a very bad year for negative campaigning.
And while it may all be coincidence, it seems very possible that two BCRA provisions have been responsible for negative campaigning not working well this year.
First, the requirement that candidates take responsibility for ads in both audio and video in the ad has raised the risk of blowback in official negative ads.
And second, the restriction on co-ordination between the campaign and the soft money groups has made it more difficult to skillfully run shadowy negative campaigns.
Example #1
In the final week before Iowa, Dean went negative, and watched his fav/unfav numbers disintegrate in both IA and NH. Would this have happened without the "I approved this ad" requirements of BCRA?
Example #2
Bush's expensive negative campaign against Kerry that began in March hasn't done much to damage Kerry's fav/unfav numbers, although it may have kept Kerry's numbers from going even higher. But Bush's numbers have deteriorated during the period of the ad. And with Bush's credibility numbers weak all year, his constant "I approved this ad" over endless negative spots haven't helped him restore his credibility.
Example #3
While it's a bit early to make final judgments, I'm of the opinion that the SBVT campaign has been a disaster for Bush. With the over-the-top and easily disprovable charges of the first ad, the group's efforts may have the side effect of inoculating Kerry against the anti-war issues of the second ad.
And even more importantly, by badly damaging Bush's credibility, the ads may inoculate Kerry against almost all Bush attacks this fall.
This example is of a different breed than the first two. Since the group is a 527, there is no "I approved this ad" to drag Bush down. But it seems possible that the restrictions on co-ordination between the campaign and the soft money group are responsible for the ineptness of the ad campaign's role in the larger strategy of the Bush campaign.
When Clinton used the DNC to destroy Dole in early '96, that was soft money used in close co-ordination with the larger campaign. I have to believe that if Karl Rove had been able to play a closer role in designing the SBVT campaign, it wouldn't have backfired so badly.