Lanell Williams-Yulee's Rule

President Chester Arthur issued these rules [1881]: "First: No person in civil service shall use his office, his official authority or influence, either to coerce the political action of any person or body to interfere with any election. Second: No person in the public service shall for that reason be under any obligation to contribute to any political fund or render any political service, and he will not be removed or otherwise prejudiced for refusing to do so."

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.

In the article “Justices divided over N.J. police officer’s First Amendment case” by Robert Barnes, he argued that public employee’s First Amendment should be protected when politics is involved. In this problem, the former detective Jeffrey Heffernan was demoted because of “…his ‘overt’ involvement in a political campaign” (Barnes). In Paterson, New Jersey, the former mayor and the new candidate, Lawrence Spagnola, were running for mayor. Before Heffernan was demoted, he was seen by an officer who saw him picking up a yard sign of Spagnola campaign. Therefore, he was demoted because Heffernan were “involved” in a political campaign. In “Justices divided over N.J. police officer’s First Amendment case”, there are many problem such as debating

Acts of corruption do not necessarily heighten the potential for corruption that individual contributions to candidates do, the Court found that restricting them does not serve a government interest enough to allow a reducing of free speech and association stated in the First

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.

Since the era of Watergate, limits to monetary contributions to campaigns have yielded a debate regarding the degradation of First Amendment rights and the fight against corrupt politics. Many of the most significant Supreme Court cases of the twenty first century such as, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, have dealt with the controversial topic of campaign finance reform and citizens’ most basic freedoms (Federal Election Commission 2015). Landmark cases regarding campaign finance reform and implications on First Amendment rights have become a controversial issue in American politics that will continue to have a vast impact on monetary

Federal Election Commission, (2010), Court decided, that funding of political campaigns advertisements by corporate contributions cannot be limited under the First Amendment of Constitution. Stevens wrote the longest in his career dissent, which was 90-pages long, saying that majority expanded their authority, and ruled on this case to have an opportunity to change the law. He stated that unlimited funding endangers the elections and opens opportunities for corruption. In the 2012 presidential election, in result of this case decision, large sums of money were contributed to the particular candidates, supporting their campaigns.

Respondent voters filed a complaint to the petitioner, Federal Election Commision (FEC), alleging that AIPAC, an organization which lobbies elected officials, and provides information about federal officeholders and potential candidates, omitted registering as a political committee. The respondents requested that AIPAC make public disclosures regarding its membership, contributions, and expenditures, since such actions are required under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which defines a political committee as any organization or other group that receives contributions or makes expenditures to influence federal elections in excess of $1,000 during a calendar year (2 U.S.C. 431(4)(A)). Petitioner dismissed the respondent's request,

The issue with the case is a section in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act BCRA that makes ads for or against persons running

On Tuesday, October 24th, 2017 at 8:50 a.m. I attended the Dade County Courthouse found on 73 West Flagler street in Miami, Florida. The courthouse is location within the 11th circuit district. The trial I observed began on time at 9:00 a.m.. Judge Lisa Walsh presided over the proceeding in courtroom 3-3,

This appears to be a case of judicial activism, mainly because it affects less the one percent of the United States population. If this was judicial restraint the judge would have hesitated and waited until the right answer was blatantly obvious before ruling on it. This is a case of ideology because the idea that people should be able to donate is much as they like was obviously the case in the ruling judge. This could be a positive outcome for campaign finance and this could be a negative. You have to look at it from both sides, but since less than one percent is really affected by this, I am going to say that it is negative because now the rich people can move effectively fund who they want in office and the non-rich person is still limited

Prior to the FECA, a number of acts were previously put in place in an attempt the limit the campaigners' methods, but they were unsuccessful. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 was amended in 1974 that restricted the amount of money candidates and their families could contribute to campaigns, limited how much individuals and groups could donate to campaigns, and created the Federal Election Committee to enforce the standards of the act(209). The act also provided public funding for

This article discusses campaign finance law and its connection to the 2016 election and candidates. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was the first attempt to regulate campaign finance. It sought to prevent the political corruption the Watergate Scandal had opened America's eyes to. This act required that information about money contributions and its contributors be available. This meant campaign donors could no longer be anonymous. The act also limited the amount of money political action committees (PAC) or special I treat groups could donate, it however did not limit the amount individuals could donate. Moreover, in 1976, the Buckley v. Valero Supreme Court decision meant that there also would not be a limit on the amount of

The background of the McCutcheon v. FEC case dates back to 1971 when the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 was implemented. This Act replaced prior federal campaign finance laws and required campaign committees to disclose funding that was contributed and spent (Nelson, Adams, Groat, Kempema, & Vaughn, n.d.). This act was later amended in 1974 imposing limits on how much any single campaign could receive or spend on their mission. These limits were implemented due to the violations revealed in the Watergate scandal. The 1974 amendment also enacted the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC was recognized; “…as an independent agency to assume the administrative functions previously divided between congressional officers and the General Accounting Office” (Nelson, et. al, n.d., para. 2). Just two years later, in 1976, there was a Supreme Court ruling which stated that establishing set limits on campaign spending was unconstitutional (n.d.).

America’s forefathers placed great importance on an individual’s freedom of expression. The First Amendment of the Constitution specifically guarantees civil freedoms such as the right of freedom of speech without interference or constraint by government and prohibited Congress from making a law or in any way prohibiting such rights (“First Amendment”). That has not kept those freedoms from being challenged, however. Many court cases have been tied into the First Amendment, with a notable one being Citizens United v. FEC. The Supreme Court in 2010 ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates through advertisements and other marketing tools. (Dunbar) The Supreme Court’s willingness to equate money with speech has been to “effectively gut campaign finance law” in the United States erected to prevent corruption and limit the influence of special interests on American politics (O’Connor et al. 374). Bernie Sanders, a U.S. Senator from Vermont and an independent presidential candidate vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination, called the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling a “disastrous decision,” and wants it overturned.