voter activities’ that in fact ultimately benefit[ed] federal candidates because the funds for all practical purposes remain[ed] under the control of the national committees.” The report concluded that “[t]he use of such soft money thus allow[ed] more corporate, union treasury, and large contributions from wealthy individuals into the system.” The report discussed potential reforms, including a ban on soft money at the national and state party levels and restrictions on sham issue advocacy by non-party groups. The majority expressed the view that a ban on the raising of soft money by national party committees would effectively address the use of union and corporate general treasury funds in the federal political process only if it required that candidate-specific ads be funded with hard money. The minority similarly recommended the elimination of softmoney contributions to political parties from individuals, corporations, and unions, as well as “reforms addressing candidate advertisements masquerading as issue ads.” * * * The findings contained in the 1998 report by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs were the basis for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed four years later. 215