Essay about The Money Trail

The campaign finance reform demonstrates some vital roles in a country’s government. It can be understood that the bill can be taken for advantage, but at the same time it can also be destructive. Elizabeth states “There are real concerns money poses about equality and corruption, but the cure is often worse than the disease” (Renstrom). The three important roles are the reform, the contribution, and the security.

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

Campaigns are run by the party, not funded by the candidate. The constitutional system and the party system are the reason why the government is decentralized, which results in either there is a strong and stable party or a very poor party (no in between) in a designated area.

This was not always the case. At one time, candidates relied heavily on their parties to help them win elections. Today, however, candidates behave more like independent political actors than party representatives. They depend mainly on their own political skills and the efforts of their campaign organizations to get elected.

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.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a "law that requires all candidates to fully disclose all contributions and expenditures in excess of $100." (pg.161) This law proved very helpful because in 1968, before they really started pushing disclosure, candidates would report spending $8.5 million but four years later candidates were reporting that they had spent about $88.9 million. It was a giant leap in what they were spending, over ten times the said amount. The FECA also made it to where "it was permissible for corporations and labor unions to set up separate, segregated funds that could be used for a political purpose." (pg.161) Having this created a lot of PACs that would give political parties and interest groups money to running

Elections shape the scope and size of our government. It’s an event where the people can decide the direction of a locality, a state, and even the federal government. Immigrants and youth who can’t vote are still impacted by the decisions of those being elected. Elections are paramount to our system of governance, however the way campaigns are run, and how funds are raised lack any meaningful oversight. The united states campaign finance system is in need reform, due to increasing deregulation, poor voter participation, and drastic increases third party spending. The root cause of this issue is our deregulated campaign finance system.

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 history of the government attempting to reform or suppress candidate donations for the office of presidency goes further back than you may think. In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA). This was important because it was to set limits on the amount of money campaigns could spend on advertisement and mandated the reporting of the source of funds to the federal government (Magleby, Light, & Nemacheck, 2015, p. 249). According to Magleby, after the major scandal of Watergate, Congress made stricter laws regarding limitations on spending and contributions of the candidates. Congress created the Federal Elections Commission (FEC); accordingly, the responsibilities of the FEC are to inforce the laws set forth by the FECA.

With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.      There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.

The Supreme Court years ago defined monetary campaign contributions as a form of speech and allowed them to be limited because of fears that corporate money corrupts elections. (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) The ruling upheld limits on contributions to individual candidates and on contributions to multiple candidates by persons or groups.

Recently in the U.S., the most frequent mentioned topic would be 2016 presidential election. People on both sides have donated to political campaigns from the very beginning. And one of the concerns is that can campaign donors write off any of these contributions on their federal income taxes? According to the IRS, the answer is a very clear NO. “You can’t deduct contributions made to a political candidate, a campaign committee, or a newsletter fund. Advertisements in convention bulletins and admissions to dinners or programs that benefit a political party or political candidate aren’t deductible,” informed in IRS Publication 529 (Political Contributions, 2015). It is also non-deductible for any of the portions of dues to lobbying or political activities. Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections. Most political contributions, for the obvious reason of creating a more politically disinterested tax system, are not tax deductible.

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

election process created for fair and efficient elections. These laws, which limit political spending, serves to limit speech by restricting the average citizen’s ability to both receive and deliver political messages. Laws that restrict spending on political campaigns not only dampen freedoms of speech but but have a counter affect on our democratic society.