Essay on The Lonely Death of Public Campaign Financing

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.

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.

Of course, such influence establishes a tyranny of the rich that our forefathers clearly wanted to prevent. Senator Russ Feingold, a proponent of campaign finance reform, said, "The current campaign finance system is fueling the transformation of our representative democracy into a corporate democracy creating a political system that allots power in direct relation to the amount of money an individual or interest group can contribute" (Campaign Finance Reform). The horror of such a governmental system has fueled the cries for campaign finance reform.

One of the issues I am most passionate about is that of money in American politics. Increasing campaign costs, coupled with a decrease in the number of donors contributing to those campaigns, is a disturbing trend which has caused many to feel the need to question the state of our democracy—myself included. The problem of mainstream political corruption and legalized bribery is one that I was made aware of three years ago, and has since become one of the things keeping me up at night most often.

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

But assuming that campaign finance reform is the way to go, the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech means any changes will need to be considered constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres proposed “a system of modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process” as outlined in their 2004 book entitled Voting with Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance. This type of financing would involve two components: patriot dollars (federal funds) and secret donations. All voters would be given a $50 publicly-funded voucher (patriot dollars) to donate to the campaign(s) of their choice. Both

These laws were the perfect way for the state to make sure that the system is stable in the future. Just recently on April 2nd, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down the overall cap on monetary political donations. This is a classic case of the state adopting policies to ensure the stability of the system. Coping the scheme of citizens united the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision allows an individual to donate as much money as they please to federal candidates in a two year election cycle. Although federal law bans direct contributions to campaigners by corporations and business, super pacs allow money to get to the politicians without direct contact. But this law still allows wealthy individuals to support the candidates that will represent their needs and wants in the national government. This creates an unfair system aimed at helping the elites because they will have more money to donate therefore will have more of the campaigners attention. Justice Breyer realized the importance of this decision being turned down and was recorded writing “Where enough money calls the tune,” he wrote, “the general public will not be heard.” (New York Times).

However, it is not money they seek; rather favors and special privileges earned by donating the supplies and monetary funds necessary for the candidate to win. Albeit to some, these favors may be menial, but to others, it could mean permission to adjourn laws that may pertain to them. A corporation, for instance, may have inspectors and officials turn a blind eye to human and workers’ rights violations. Likewise, similar campaign finance proposals began to start limiting the regulation of campaign financing, however, the next notable campaign act Congress enacted did not happen until the latter portion of the 20th century.

With the introduction of “soft” money in politics, elections no longer go to the best candidate, but simply to the richer one. Soft money is defined as unregulated money that is given to the political parties that ends up being used by candidates in an election. In last year’s elections, the Republican and Democratic parties raised more than one-half of a billion dollars in soft money. Current politicians are pushing the envelope farther than any previous administrations when it comes to finding loopholes in the legal system for campaign fundraising. The legal limit that any one person can contribute to a given candidate or campaign is one thousand dollars. There is, however, no limit on the amount of money one

The case “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” was to regulate the spendings of candidates campaign, but it failed to succeed. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Bentley, 2017) The case was ruled in favor of big business donating private funds to campaigns. They argued because the first amendment protects the right to speak of many corporations and unions, whether or not people see them as human, therefore the are aloud to donate money to a candidate. (Bentley, 2017) In the academic journal written by Bentley, he States the Court majority (Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas) argued, " although government has the authority to prevent corruption or “the appearance of corruption,” it has no place in determining whether large political expenditures are either of those things, so it may not impose spending limits on that basis." This meaning the government cannot enforce spending limits on private donors due to the government not being able to identify the big businesses as "corrupted". Since the government cannot label an organization as corrupt or unjust, therefore the donor can continue to assist the candidate. The main problem is the United States of America seems to avoid this. There is a clear problem with Citizens United being able to continue donating money to candidates without giving them so much power. This can be stopped through a constitutional amendment to strip away the corporations of their rights. (Bentley, 2017) By doing this, there will be a very successful campaign for future candidates due to there being an equal amount of money being distributed to them

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

Regardless of which political side of the fence you are on, these laws work more to extend the problem they purport to fix. Allowing more contributions simply permits more people to participate in the ­system — thus diffusing influence, rather than concentrating it among the large corporations and unions. Campaign­-finance reform, then, actually undermines the effort to ­promote equal access to the political arena.

Many times the American people have asked themselves why certain topics take precedent over other topics that may seem worthy of attention. The common speculation is that money from special interest groups have infiltrated re-election campaigns are the ones who really have the power and last say on what occurs in government. Many people have campaigned in order to pass a reform that would disclose how a political campaign is funded or set a limitation on how much can be donated to a specific campaign. Some people may argue that doing so may infringe on the rights of voters and their decision on how much to donate or that it prevents individuals from expressing their opinions on political issues, but by not having rules in place on what can