Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974

In 1974, FECA–the Federal Election Campaign Act–a campaign finance law, was amended to place legal limits on campaign elections to a maximum of $1,000 per individual and $5,000 per PAC–political action committee–for each primary, election and runoff. However, FECA neglected to take into account the effects of inflation. Since 1974, inflation has caused $1,000 today to equate to only $240 in 1974, less than a fourth of the originally intended amount. Due to this, candidates need to raise four times the amount of money that they did 41 years ago when the act was amended. Consequently, candidates must focus more on fundraising and have less time to meet citizens and tend to their official

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 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.

My research topic is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I chose this topic because I always found it amusing that it took so long for African Americans to legally be allowed to vote. I also thought this topic was appropriate since we now have an African American president, and the African Americans citizens need to know that voting I important because we didn’t always have that right.

The Voting Rights act of 1965 was established on August 6, 1965. This law was set to outlaw discrimination of voting practices adopted in many Southern States after the civil war, including literary test as a prerequisite to voting. The act was signed into law by former president Lyndon Johnson after a century of deliberate and violent denial of the vote to African- Americans in the South and latinos in the Southwest as well as many years of entrenched electoral systems that shut out citizens with limited fluency in english. The voting Rights act of 1965 has traced back to the 14th and 15th Amendment where it grants citizenships to all persons born in the united states including former slaves and provided all citizens with equal protection

McCutcheon v. FEC was a landmark case in American campaign finance law which challenged that it is unconstitutional to limit an individual’s donations to as many parties as they want because in doing so their freedom of speech is being violated. The plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon who is part of the Jefferson County Republic Party Steering Committee as well as the Reagan Foundation. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff. This case is a constitutional challenge to aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates and to political committees such as PACs and parties. These aggregate limits restrict the total amount of money an individual may contribute to all candidates or all political committees during an election cycle. The plaintiff did not challenge the individual contribution limits on particular political entities but challenged the additional cap BCRA places on the total an individual can place on all political contributions. BCRA stands for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which addressed two main issues: “prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits . . . and the proliferation of issue advocacy ads” (which is defined as “electioneering communication” and was over turned in Citizens United v. FEC) (Campaign Finance Law Quick Reference for Reporters). So what does this mean exactly?

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

In 1965, at a time of racial discrimination in America and the emergence of a strong Civil Rights Movement, congress enacted the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits discrimination in voting. Congress could not end racial discrimination in voting by suing one jurisdiction, state, etc. at a time. Rather, Congress passed Section 5 of the VRA, which required states and local governments with a history of racially discriminating voting practices to get the approval of the U.S. Attorney General or a three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court for D.C. (“preclearace”) in order to make any changes to their voting practices. Section 4(b) said that the preclearance requirement applied to states and political subdivisions that used a “test or

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

During the course of the Watergate investigation, it was discovered that nearly forty different corporations and individual executives had made illegal contributions to both parties during the 1972 presidential campaign. As a result, Congress enacted sweeping campaign finance reforms in 1974, limiting the amount of contributions to political campaigns and establishing guidelines for the detailed accounting and reporting of donations and

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,

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.

The Voting Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 et seq., decision is important regarding the laws governing voting rights and their relationship to minority voters. Its implication and effects however does not end within the legal realms and dimensions but continues through to society, culture, and human rights. The Voting Rights Act initially established in 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration protected “racial minorities” from biased voting practices. It was a huge stride in the civil rights movement and a victory over harmful, archaic, and biased voting practices and traditions.

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.