U.s. Federal Election Commissions

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

Citizens United is an organization that wants to restore citizen control of the United States government. They want to restore the America back to a free nation that has a limited government. The way that they achieve this is to produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films. In 2009, Citizen United sued the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United stated that it was illegal to limit a corporation from spending its treasury money to support or attack candidates in presidential elections. This led to outside groups such as the Super PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money. Super PACs are an independent political action committee. They could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, and other individuals.

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.

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

Following the Watergate scandal, the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1974 was amended to create the regulatory agency, known as the Federal Elections Commission, in 1975. The duties of the FEC consist largely of enforcing regulation, limitation, and prohibition on financial contributions to federal campaigns, candidates, political parties, and political action committees. The Act has thoroughly set limits on the amount of money a person or committee may donate to the previously mentioned situations. For example, an individual can donate no more than $2,600 to any federal campaign per election, and a combined limit of $10,000 to local and state parties every calendar year. The case at hand involves Shaun McCutcheon challenging the aggregate limits as a violation of the First Amendment right of expression. An Alabaman Conservative businessman, McCutcheon expressed that he wished to donate more than the contributions he was able to make in the last election cycle. He wanted to contribute an amount that would stay within base limits but surpass aggregate limits set by the FEC.

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

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

Furthermore, they must disclose that the candidate of which the advertising is about does not condone the message ("Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission."). The Supreme Court struck down the law, thus essentially allowing unlimited funding of candidates from corporations. The unrestricted access that campaigns have when funding grants legal impairment of those who are unable to donate money as a corporation would, thus making the votes of the people matter less.

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

‘Citizens United’ overturns Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sentencing that its related clauses go against to the principle of freedom of speech in constitution. The ruling follows a bitter boardroom dispute in all sides in America, which has profoundly affect the average American citizens, the country at large and other stakeholders. Firstly, it affects American citizens. On the one hand, in the year of Occupy Wall Street, large amount of the public protested this ruling, for that this ruling may leads to the corruption and make normal people lose their political rights gradually. But on the other hand, they are allowed to collect for the election without limitation, which is supported by many young people especially the supporter of Democratic Party. Secondly, it affects the country at large. Even in America with classical liberalism and neo-conservatism, there is still

Our government shapes the nation that we live in. That is why it is so important to ensure that campaign financing is taking place within the law. It takes a number of departments and agencies within the federal bureaucracy in addition to the other branches of government to ensure campaigns are funded properly. Though our current campaign finance laws may not be perfect, it is important that everyone is following the same rules. The Federal Election Commission, Department of Treasury, and Department of Justice each play a role in ensuring this happens. This makes our election process one of the best in the

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a 2010 Supreme Court case concerning the regulation of campaign contributions by corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations. The case is known for its holding that campaign spending by such groups is protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech.

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is based around the first amendment right of free speech and who is allowed to have the right thereof. Facts about the case brief are that Citizens United was the creator of a documentary film that lasted 90 minutes long and required viewers to pay to watch. The film started in theaters and then moved to DVD, after that had finished Citizens United then created a few more short ads for television that requested voters not to vote for Hillary Clinton. The concern arises when a group is able to create a full movie length campaign negative towards one candidate.

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.

The main concern regarding money being used for political purposes or contributions expenses is that the money will be used to boost approval ratings through media outlets. Monies used for airtime that is contributed by the millions by corporations to help campaign for their choice in officials should be considered their choice and their freedom of expression or speech. Many citizens only have television or internet as their main form of education regarding elections, therefore this may seem threatening to campaigns that may not have the wealthy corporations backing their progress. The problem that we are facing as a nation is not whether someone or something gives money to a political venture; it is simply education of the citizens that are voting. Any amount of manipulation by money or campaigns should not matter if a person is educated properly on who they are voting for and why.