The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, BCRA or McCain-Feingold, was an effort to eliminate some of the effect that money played in elections by banning "soft money," among other things. In McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission, argued before the Supreme Court and excerpted here, Senator Mitch McConnell's counsel Kenneth Starr argued that the act went too far in banning soft money and that it limited the first amendment guarantee of free speech. As Solicitor General, Theodore Olson defended BCRA on behalf of the federal government. It was a contentious issue and other plaintiffs and defendants became involved in the case, arguing for one side or the other. In the end the Supreme Court found that BCRA did not violate free speech, and that it was a legitimate use of the government's authority to limit "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption." The opinion issued by the court was a 5-4 split, with two dissenting opinions that were included with the 300 page majority opinion and three additional opinions that were published separately.