WASHINGTON, Dec 11: A Supreme Court verdict banning the use of unregulated money for campaign financing is being interpreted across the United States as a major move towards reducing money’s influence on American politics.

The court on Wednesday banned the raising and spending by political parties of uncapped, unregulated “soft money”. It also ordered that political advertisements by interest groups before elections be paid from regulated money.

The money raised within the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is considered “hard” or regulated money while contributions that do not conform to this act are regarded as unregulated or “soft money”.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, authored by senators Russel Feingold and John McCain, was challenged in the Supreme Court by both left and right-wing interest groups. They argued the reform violated the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor, the former a liberal and the latter a conservative, shared authorship of the central court’s decision on the soft money ban.

The decision said the reform act, which forbids national party committees and their agents to “solicit, receive ... direct ... or spend any funds ... that are not subject to (legal) limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements”, does not violate the First Amendment.

A court majority also rejected an argument that the ban on “soft” money contributions was overboard, ruling that the ban applied only to national party committees and workers acting in their official capacities.

The majority also upheld “soft” money restrictions on minor parties.