Reforms For Stricter Campaign Financing Rules

When Senators Russ Feingold and Senator McCain introduced the first version of the BCRA on September 7, 1995, soft money was still in the reform. “Soft money contributions, which were unregulated donations made to a political party, were not allowed under the law to influence individual candidates or campaigns. But in practice, soft money given to political parties was funneled to individual campaigns, or used to run phony "issue ads" that were actually advertisements for a candidate. As the parties collected more and more soft money, it became impossible to ignore at least the perception that large contributors, corporations, and labor unions were buying access to politicians. In the 1992 election cycle, the parties raised a total of $86 million in soft money. In 1996, that number more than tripled to $262 million. And in 2000, soft money receipts nearly doubled again to $495 million, nearly half a billion dollars. It was the equivalent of hanging a "For Sale" sign on our nation's capital (Feingold, 2004, p. 1). The McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan act bans these soft money contributions.

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

‘Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly dominates the U.S. Electoral process and is the main factor contributing to a candidates success’ Discuss (30 marks)

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

Regulating soft money has been difficult because of constitutional issues that protect First Amendment rights, and Congress’ rights over regulating political parties must be focused on preventing fraud or corruption (Mason, 1997). Soft money is used to mobilize campaigns by using the money to support voter registration drives, and other similar activities designed to jump start a candidates’ campaign (Brennan Center, 2000). For this reason, soft money is important to an election campaign, and recently the amount of soft money raised for campaigns has skyrocketed. It has become a concern because it is largely unregulated and can be used to gain an unfair

In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number

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

Before 1971, political figures still had leeway in the financing of their campaigns. However, Congress tightened down on campaign financing, and began to restrict the permissible activities candidates could expedite in, beginning in 1971. The first component of the bill demanded that all candidates running to fully disclose their full campaign finance report (Appendix 4). Before this, candidates could, for the most part, receive and spend contributed campaign money any way they seemed fit for the success of their campaigns, though previous acts had heightened the stipulations of this money. Furthermore, this act enacted restrictions on the permissible amounts of money candidates could spend on advertisements (appendix 4). Although advertisements had not

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

Campaign finance reform is a movement in the United States to help change the involvement of money in American political campaigns (Boundless, 2015). “ Throughout the history of campaign finance reform, three main areas have consistently been the target of regulation: contributions, expenditures, and advertising. Over the years Congress has instituted limits on how much individuals or organizations may contribute to federal campaign committees and political groups, how much campaign committees may spend during the course of an election, and how much money might be used for advertising expenses during a campaign” (Smith, 2010). To help limit contributions, expenditures, and advertising Congress has passed laws which are known as campaign finance

The debate would make it all the way to the Supreme Court, who would uphold the law saying the law maintained campaign integrity and prevented corruption. The Supreme Court did, however, remove spending limits as long as the money was spent to expressly endorse a candidate. In 1979, FECA is further amended to allow individuals, unions, and corporations to give unlimited funds for “party building.” The amendment created what was called “soft money” donations and was a large loophole in the system. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned soft money, unlimited contributions, and prohibited political ads made by unions and corporations from airing within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The law would be taken to the Supreme Court twice in 2003 and 2007. Despite both times resulting in a 5-4 vote in favor of the law, the 2007 case would remove the political ad ban. Finally, the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case would not only dismantle the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act but allow for the formation of Super PACs which they stated did not promote corruption (Rowen, n.d.). SuperPACs have launched campaign finance reform back into the spotlight and are crucial to any discussion on the subject today.

People search far and wide all the time to find the truth. According to Shana Lebowitz, “humans actually judge people psychologically based on their face, if they are able to trust another person” (P1). Americans in-particular have had an issue all throughout their country with both corruption and money flooding their political system ultimately preventing positive social change. The questions on campaign finance reform stems in two very different directions in political debate. One, is “Money Free Speech?" Two does it actually promote corruption like some political observers say and if so can it be stopped? Politian’s are first and foremost supposed to be a servant to the people regardless of their background, not to business and or themselves.

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.

After the Citizen United vs. the FEC Supreme Court ruling, in favor of Citizens United, political campaigns have the ability to raise much greater funds through organizations called super PACs. According to Michael Beckel a political reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, “Officially known as “independent expenditure-only committees”— and unofficially dubbed “super PACs”—these political action committees are able to raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, unions, and other organizations” (Beckel 655). On top of the ability to raise unlimited funds, the individuals donating are not required to disclose their names. This could lead to some serious corruption. Super PACs can run as much advertisement either for or against a political candidate, seriously swaying the way citizen’s vote and view a candidate. In fact “super PACs are allowed to use 100 percent of the funds they raise to influence elections” (Beckel 656). No one expected this Supreme Court ruling to have an impact so fast. As stated in an article published by The Nation, “The total number of TV ads for House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates in 2010 was 2,870,000. This was a 250 percent increase over the number of TV ads