Campaign Finance Reform Analysis

Campaign Finance Reform has become an increasingly discussed topic due to the events that have occurred throughout the 2016 election thus far. Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders and Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump have both used the Campaign Finance Reform (CFR) debate as a means to garner additional support from people who feel that “big money” i.e. corporations and the super wealthy, have influenced politics for far too long. “Big money” in politics is an issue that needs to be addressed. With each new election cycle the amount of money being poured into campaign funding continues to grow. The majority of this money is produced by large donations from Political Action Committees (PACs) which are funded by the

Individuals contributions were capped at $1,000 donations to a candidate and $5,000 to PACs, as well as an aggregate limit of $115,500 over two years to candidates and PACS altogether. (FECA, Public Law 92-225). These rates have been changed a number of times over the years due to different amendments and Supreme Court rulings. However, the most current contribution limits came into effect by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as the McCain-Feingold law or BCRA) of 2002. Although the individual contribution limit to PACs remains at $5,000, the individual limit has risen to $2,700 a candidate. In addition to the higher individual contribution limit, after the 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, an individual no longer has an aggregate limit donating to candidates and PACs. Throughout the years many cases have gone to the Supreme Court against the FEC, such as the McCutcheon v. FEC stated above, however. None have been more impactful than the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC case which changed political spending dramatically. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities, as long as it is done independently of a party or candidate (Levy, U.S. News). Since the Citizens United decision, political spending has dramatically increased. In the 2012 presidential election, a total of $1294.1 million dollars was spent by outside groups, such as Super PACs and other types of committees (opensecrets.org). This is more than twice the amount raised from the 2008 election (prior to the Citizens United case) where $574.5 million dollars were raised by outside groups. Ultimately this has led us to the growing