Reforms For Stricter Campaign Financing Rules

1657 Words7 Pages
"Individuals and PACs in finance, insurance, and real estate have contributed over $2 billion to federal campaigns since 1990. Wall Street contributions increased from $60 million in 1990 to $311 million in 2005" (Wall online). "Electoral competition is achieved when qualified candidates have access to sufficient spending to become known to the voters" (Does online). Therefore the candidate must resort to any means necessary to have sufficient funds to run a successful campaign. Stricter campaign financing guidelines are needed to limit the amount of donations to candidates because interest money is a dominant factor in campaigns. It steers the ideological views of the candidate toward the Political Action Committee that donates the most…show more content…
“SSFs are political committees established and administered by corporations, labor unions, membership organizations or trade associations. These committees can only solicit contributions from individuals associated with connected or sponsoring an organization" (Quick online). One of the loopholes that the political action committees found to limitlessly fund campaigns was soft money. ”Soft money is a loophole that allows individuals, unions, and corporations to give unlimited sums to parties and national party committees for "party-building" purposes, at grass root level" (Edwards 284). These groups were able to bypass the regulations instituted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. Regardless of how Congress enacted on stricter campaign financing guidelines, unions, individuals, and corporations were still able to find loopholes to contribute money to campaigns. Due to the absurd amounts of money that is required for the candidates to be able to creditably and adequately compete; candidates have been forced to turn to PACs to fund their campaigns. "The current system of campaign financing argues that the high cost of office-seeking and current ways of meeting those costs not only distract elected officials from their primary task of lawmaking, but leave the door open to the influence of special interests" (Power online). This method of campaigning is criticized to be undemocratic, because candidates do not attentively listen to their
Get Access