Campaign Finance Debate

Campaign Finance has developed numerous changes to our society today due to the many cases, and newborn restrictions in the past. Campaign Finance is a term that refers to the efforts to regulate political campaign in terms of funding. This funding is well identified as the spending to support political candidates and their chance campaigns. The support they receive helps them become a more promoted candidate as well as increasing their campaign. In the case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), James Buckley, a conservative New York senator felt that many new restrictions brought upon the Presidential campaign finance were unconstitutional. These restrictions involved new restrictions to federal funding, meaning that candidates were limited on what

Each year billions of dollars are spent on getting candidates of various offices of government elected. Many candidates have had tremendous success through the efforts of much needed monetary contributions to their campaign. Contributors range from unions, religious leaders, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and senior citizens groups. When these groups, known as special interest groups, donate to candidate’s campaign, they expect the candidate to respond to their issues. Because special interest groups, as well as private citizens donate more and more money to campaigns, there is some concern that there is a great need for campaign finance reform.

From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700’s you had to be a white male landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has over the election process and politicians. While money has it’s

The right of free speech granted to all citizens in the first amendment, the necessity of funding expensive political campaigns, and the fact that small donations make a candidate responsive to the needs of their constituents, all make any restrictions on campaign financing unneeded and onerous. Congress should strike down any bills attempting to reform this essential part of the U.S. election process. Any further restrictions on donations to political campaigns will prove detrimental to the United States functioning system of elections by limiting individuals’ freedom of speech, making our candidate’s campaigns underfunded and unresponsive to the needs of the American people.

Daniel R. Ortiz’s writing, The Democratic Paradox of Campaign Finance Reform states that those who argue for campaign finance reform, violate the democratic theory in the name of defending it. This article reveals the paradox between campaign finance reform and other types of regulation of political process. Although the paradox is unavoidable, along with discomforting, it should be made evident.

Despite its popularity, there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has actually accomplished any of the goals set out for it by its supporters. Efforts to regulate campaign finance have been little short of disastrous. They have distorted the political process, hindered grassroots political involvement, infringed on First Amendment rights, and helped to entrench incumbents in office while doing nothing to address the allegedly corrupting influence of money in politics.

Campaign Finance reform has been a topic of interest throughout the history of the United States Government, especially in the more recent decades. There are arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of campaign finance limits argue that wealthy donors and corporations hold too much power in elections and as a result they can corrupt campaigns. Those who favor less regulation argue that campaign donations are a form of free speech. One case in particular, Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission has altered everything with pertaining to Campaign Finance.

The Fair Elections Now Act was introduced by Senator Durbin of Illinois in February 2014, and it would change the way Congressional candidates can finance their elections. The Act stipulates that qualified Congressional candidates would earn grants, matching funds, and television vouchers based on a minimum amount of small-dollar contributions from their local community (Durbin, 2015). This bill has still not been adopted, or accepted into law. This type of campaign finance reform is needed for Presidential elections as well.

Over the last few decades, the United States Congress has debated several campaign finance reforms. The proposals debated have included limiting independent expenditures, raising limits on individual contributions, banning all private campaign contributions, and creating a public financing campaign system.

There were several landmark supreme court cases and laws before Citizens United that attempted to regulate campaign contributions. Political corruption can easily be caused by increased amounts of funds going to a candidate. A candidate will be more likely to benefit corporate interests because that will allow them to get more money later to help in reelection efforts. This becomes problematic because average citizens do not have the ability to donate large sums of money to a candidate. This makes the speech of large corporations worth far more than the average citizen. This can have a drastic impact on the marketplace of ideas. John Stuart Mills in his book, On Liberty, creates the marketplace of ideas. This marketplace consists of all speech being able to have equal weight and face

The Supreme Court also sited in that same ruling that, “In a free society by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people-individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees-who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign” (Keena 6). While it may be a violation of freedom of speech to limit television ads, many of today’s candidates have made a mockery of the existing legislature regarding campaign financing. Ex-president Bill Clinton bent the rules and laws more than possibly any elected official ever, and certainly farther than anyone since Richard Nixon. Thad Cochran, a veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, stated, “Clinton used his own party and had it operated out of the campaign office, which was the White House, to coordinate expenditures by the Democratic Party and his election campaign in an unlimited amount, using soft money to pay for the ads, with his own chief-of-staff making the decisions about the kind of advertising, and Clinton himself was involved in writing some of the ads that were actually run by the Democratic Party using soft money” (Williams 10). No elected official had ever gone so far as to run soft money ads out of his own office, let alone rewrite the ads himself. It is cases such as this one that are prime examples for why there is such a need for new laws to govern campaign financing.

     After President Nixon and the Watergate controversy in 1971, the United States began to put limits on how much a candidate could receive and spend within a campaign. In order to enforce fairness between candidates,

Campaign funding influencing elections can be found as far back as the very first election. George Washington lost his election into the House of Burgesses. He put money into his next campaign buying punch and hard cider for his supporters and won the next election, but the government banned this because it was a form of bribery (Fuller). They also felt that this was something that was not fair and would lead to there being an obvious clear path to the win.

The idea of money in politics has always been a polarizing issue. For over one hundred years the discussion of individuals and corporations financing campaigns has led to a debate of corruption versus free speech. Is money in politics a corrupting influence that always leads to quid pro quo? Or, is it an issue of allowing individuals to use their money as an extension of their freedom of speech? Recently, campaign finance reform has been a very dynamic issue. With the last major supreme court case Citizens United v. FEC, money in politics has taken a significant turn from the status quo. With only seven years after the Citizens United ruling we can already see the effects of less regulated free speech in politics.

It was after Watergate, that Congress enacted legislation that limited the sum of money that individuals could contribute and the amount they could independently spend in support of or in opposition to particular political candidates. Congress’s purpose was to establish a more “fair” political process. The ultimate goal was to decrease the probability of corruption of candidates and equalize the influence between corporations and unions. In 2010, that would all change when the Supreme court would overturn this ruling in the Citizens United verses the Federal Election Commission. The Supreme court would now allow for corporations and unions to use their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures, which they