Throughout the years campaign financing has drastically changed, with the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Election Campaign Act playing a significant role in how our leaders fund their political endeavors. It is through this legislation and amendments to this legislation that our trusted representatives attempt to ensure honest and wholesome fundraising.
In 1971, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, establishing financial disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political action committees, and political parties. The legislation was then amended in 1974, creating the Federal Election Committee. The Federal Election Commission, also know as the FEC, is an independent regulatory agency which regulates campaign
…show more content…
The legislation primarily focused on two issues, soft money and issue advocacy ads. Soft money, money given by “unions, corporations and individuals to political parties in order to financially aid activities pertaining to elections” (Campaign Finance Institute), was able to be given in unlimited amounts under the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 disallowed national political parties from asking for or spending soft money. The legislation also stopped local political party groups from using soft money in ways which affected federal elections. In regards towards ad advocacy, it prohibited the use of union and corporate funds to pay for television ads clearly supporting a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. This also required that candidates claim their advertisements, referred to as the “stand by your ad” (Flanagan, 68) provision. This legislation also provided a regulatory exception for what are classified as 527 organizations, deemed as such due to the section of the tax code they operate under. These organizations are not regulated by the FEC, so long as they do not coordinate with political candidates or specifically advocate for one specific candidate’s success or defeat …show more content…
Both of these candidates adapted to the limitations imposed on individual donors, reaching out to their donor bases and asking for small donations. Many criticize Hillary Clinton’s current fundraising, saying “she is struggling to replicate the sort of small-dollar juggernaut that Mr. Obama enjoyed in his campaigns and Senator Bernie Sanders relied on in this year’s Democratic primaries” (Vogel, 2016). Many are surprised by this, believing that after running against Obama she would have adopted his small donor fundraising scheme. Political strategists struggle to understand why she hasn’t adapted, saying it “boggles my mind that the Clinton campaign didn’t learn their lessons from 2012 or even earlier this year, and haven’t moved toward a more open and public campaign, one that constantly has her in front of real people instead of rich people” (Vogel, 2016). Fundraising practices also reflect upon the candidate, effecting how voters view the candidate’s motives. To some voters, “Clinton’s campaign still seems stuck on the old model of never-ending high-dollar fund-raisers. As a result, she looks secluded and out of reach, further reinforcing the notion that she cares more about the wealthy than regular folks” (Martin, 2016). This portrays Clinton as a typical politician, an individual more interested in the monetary politics than the true needs of
Along with Obama, Vogel mentions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as critics of large donors, who then also were leading in super PAC fundraisers. Though Vogel mentions many people and events, he never goes into great detail about any of it. Even with the immense amount of information that is left to the reader to decipher and research, one must ask themselves this question, “what are the effects of big money on modern politics.”
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, despite being backed by 75 percent of House Republicans, and 41 percent of Senate Republicans, caused immense controversy in Washington. Senator James Buckley sued the secretary of the senate Frances Valeo on the Constitutionality of FECA. In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United.
The current use of soft money in the US Governmental elections is phenomenal. The majority of candidates funding comes from soft money donations. Congress has attempted to close these funding loop holes; however they have had little success. Soft money violates standards set by congress by utilizing the loop hole found in the Federal Election Commission’s laws of Federal Campaigns. This practice of campaign funding should be eliminated from all governmental elections.
The Supreme Court of the United States articulated this point in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, commonly referred to as plain “Citizens United”, in the majority opinion. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, wrote that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” (Kennedy). Basically, he is saying that if free speech means anything, it must apply to the case of campaign contributions. Where Citizens United failed, however, was its cap on independent expenditures that corporations could make. It let corporations influence elections but limited money spent. SpeechNow.org v. FEC solved that issue. It ruled against the cap of donations on Super PACs (Forget Citizens United). In conjunction with the Citizens United decision, Super PACs were finally able to use their free speech. This paved a path for free speech in the election
in lobbying policy makers, the role of business in financing elections, and messages favorable to
employees to raise funds, give partisan public speeches, or volunteer for any candidate or party. Among its provisions,
Eliminating Soft Money Contributions to Provide Equal Opportunity for all Candidates to Run Similar Campaigns
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
"Whether the issue is consumer privacy, a Patients' Bill of Rights, environmental pollution, or a prescription drug benefit for older Americans, soft money donors will get their opinions heard on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Soft money is drowning out the voices of average Americans -- it is time to put an end to the corrupt soft money system"
The subject of campaign finance reform sounds so dull, but it is necessary to understand that reform helps to keep the society flowing smoothly. Therefore, what is the current status of campaign finance reform? In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed by Congress. It was also known as the McCain-Feingold Act (Sidlow, 2013, p.213). It banned soft money at federal levels and regulated campaign ads from interest groups because the enormous amount of money spent by interest groups for their ads had the appearance of corruption (South University Online, 2013). There is so much money floating around right now that I fear the common man may soon have little say in what happens in this country. Now the super PACs and 501c's are spreading their influences too. Can reform be a realistic expectation of the American political process?
A hot topic in recent years has been the influence of Political Action Committees or PACs, which are specific special interest groups that raise and give money in order to have their policies shown in government. These PACs represent groups of people that have professional int...
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
The advocacy explosion is strongly linked to the decline of the American political party and the role of the political parties in elections. As interest groups have gained more power and had a larger control over politics and political goods the power that is exerted by political parties has dwindled. The power of the interest group has grown larger with the amount of members and the financial rewards that have come with the new members. In elections interest groups do not usually participate directly with the candidate or the election. Berry points out that “Groups often try to leverage their endorsement to obtain support for one of their priorities” (Berry, 53). With interest groups spreading their resources around the actual election can be affected very minimally by the many interest groups that contribute money to the election. However, the candidates who obtain political office through the help of special interest money still owe some sort of loyalty to the interest group regardless of which party wins the election. This loyalty and the promise of more money in the future gives the elected of...
Running an election campaign is very strenuous and time consuming. In many ways it is a balancing act. One must deal with maintaining public visibility, appealing to the voters, developing a platform, kissing disgusting babies, and meeting as many people as possible. However, one of the most important and difficult parts of the job is raising money. Money is necessary for all parts of the campaign, and without it, a campaign can grind to a halt. In this paper I will attempt to explain how a candidate gets the money to campaign.