Campaign Finance Reform

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

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 issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush’s response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that money is

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.

A further argument that compliments the idea that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate’s success is Congress’ attempts to try and limit its influence. The Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 set limits on campaign finance but was effectively struck down in Citizens United 2010. Congress isn’t trying to set limits on the amount of events a candidate runs but rather the expenditure limits. This suggests that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate’s success because Congress trying to limit indicates its influence and dominance. In the UK, there is a strict campaign finance rule, which also compliments the idea that it is a dominant factor.

The 1970s began a more active era of campaign finance reform. The passing of the Revenue Act of 1971 allows citizens to contribute one dollar to a presidential candidate’s campaign fund by checking a box on their federal income tax returns. Along with the Revenue Act of 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act was also passed in 1971. This law institutes disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees of donations more than $100. This law also sets a spending limit of $50,000

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.

The current network of campaign finance is a complicated web involving individual contributors, soft money and hard money, and political action committee influence. In the aftermath of the crooked Watergate scandal, anxiety over campaign finance led to the passage of two major reform bills—the Revenue Act of 1971 and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974—that have set the guidelines and regulations for campaign finance. Although many other laws and acts have been passed in effort to regulate campaign finance, these two acts set the main standards for campaign finance regulation. The main ideas of the acts stipulate that candidates for the two houses of Congress receive no public funding, candidates in the presidential primaries receive matching dollars, and candidates

After the Watergate scandal, Congress attempted to weave out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain amount. The Federal Election Commission was created to enforce the statute.

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.

     Rather than government providing millions of dollars for the campaign and putting harsh restricts on individual donations, I believe that the limits should not be put on the American people but on the candidates themselves. Spending on the campaign has gotten out of control within the last decade. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spend on mobile campaigns, advertisements, and media exposure. This funding could easily go towards other areas of society, benefiting the very people that the candidates wish to govern. Rather than directing negative attention, I believe that candidates should reach out to the public to gain support. Campaigning for presidency should not be about winning or who raises the most money. Presidency should be about protecting and caring for the American people. The conduct of campaigns should be monitored in order to limit spending and to prevent negative advertising towards opposite candidates.

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

Campaign finance regulation refers to attempts to regulate the ways in which political campaigns are funded. This includes all spending done to promote or support the promotion of candidates, ballot measures, political parties and more. Regulations can be applied to natural persons, corporations, political action committees, political parties and other organizations. They can come in the form of incentives, such as providing public financing to candidates who abide by spending limits, as well as restrictions, such as contribution limits on donors. Legislative efforts, judicial rulings and citizen initiatives have all played roles in shaping the regulation of political contributions.

Another aspect of FECA was to limit hard money. The philosophy behind this was to restrict the amount of money one individual could give directly to a PAC so they would not have too much influence in the outcome of an election. As a reaction, the PACs started investing into media outlets and began creating commercials. By doing this PACs were able to maintain their influence while still obeying the campaign laws (Hughes 4:30-5:00).

“All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law”. This quote from Theodore Roosevelt illustrates how corporate money can be disastrous when entangled in elections. Unfortunately, the United States continues to grant large corporations the ability to donate to campaigns, leading to a corrupt campaign system. The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that companies and Super PAC’s can donate an unlimited amount of money to endorse candidates. The Citizens United ruling has caused increased political corruption in the United States by giving candidates the money they need to win an election while changing policies that would be beneficial to their corporate donors and not the American people.