Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, the primary source of campaign funds is individuals while political action committees stand as the second source. Contributions from both are limited and direct contributions from corporations and labor unions are prohibited. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed a 20-year-old ruling that had previously prohibited corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. This paper explains the current status of campaign finance reform and discusses if it is a realistic expectation of the American political process. It also discusses the role of the soft money. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent federal agency created in 1974 by amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to enforce FECA. Public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits. The system is designed so that the Democratic or Republican candidates for President of the United States routinely qualify for funds, while excluding most other party candidates. Over half the states allow some level of corporate and union contributions. Some states have limits on contributions from individuals that are lower than the national limits. The six states Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Virginia have no limits at all. Soft money is money given to political parties which is not subject to the contribution and spending limits of the FECA. It is not subject to those provisions of FECA because it is not used to expressly advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates. During a brief period in the presidential election of 1976, when soft money was not allowed in the system, the results were bad. Congress noted a marked drop off in grass roots party campaigning, as the presidential campaigns used their limited "hard money" resources for television ads. State, local, and national parties could not spend money for the traditional bumper stickers, yard signs, slate cards, and other grass roots activity. This type of grassroots campaigning plays an important role in linking citizens to the political parties and the American system of democratic self-governance. Thus, in 1979, Congress acted to clarify FECA by expressly authorizing soft money contributions and spending, even though such contributions and spending might affect federal elections. In addition to grassroots campaign activity, soft money also funds voter registration drives, phone banks, and get-out-the-vote efforts conducted by parties. Drying up the source of money for such activities will accelerate the decline in voters. Congress should approach the issue of soft money contributions carefully. Soft money serves a number of valuable purposes in the political system. As with any other reform, the Judiciary has an important role to play in campaign finance reform. President Obama appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and some recent updates exposed the contrasting opinions of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan on the topic. It was clear in the Supreme Court decision invalidating Arizona's public financing scheme under the First Amendment. Each accused the other of ignoring facts, ignoring doctrine, even ignoring the basic principles undergirding the First Amendment. The American political system is almost entirely captive to money. The bottom line is the bottom line. The campaign finance reform is truly significant in the political system of United States. Corporations, philanthropists, other groups and individuals must be able to donate an unlimited amount, with transparency in the election process. This fund needs to be equally divided among parties. This is not happening unfortunately. Elected Democrats have made some efforts toward that end, but Republicans are doing everything possible to stop them. The practice of consolidating power only in the hands of the wealthiest is not anticipated for any democratic nation.