Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
watergate scandal
electoral reforms essays
whitewater and Watergate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: watergate scandal
The first main attempt to regulate campaign financing occurred in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The act set requirements for disclosure of contributions to federal campaigns, both presidential and congressional. The main regulation to financing occurred though after its amendment in 1974. After reports of big financial abuses in the 1972 presidential election and the Watergate scandal, people wanted more constraints on financing particularly those from special interest groups. The act required strict disclosure of campaign donations. Candidates had to name all contributors who donated more than $200 a year. They also set up contribution limits and expenditure limits. Individuals could not contribute more than $1,000 to a candidate and political action committees (PACs) could not contribute more than $5,000. There were also limits on expenditures from a candidate’s personal fund and on total campaign expenditures (The FEC, 2011).
For presidential elections, the FECA instituted a public financing system to level the playing field and limit the amount of money spent on campaigning. During the primaries, there is a matching program where the government will match up to $250 of each contribution made to eligible candidates. In return, they agree to limit their spending. The other program is during the general election; the president receives a lump sum of money and in return they do not accept any further private donations.
The major provision to the FECA that resulted from the misuse of money and Watergate scandal is the prohibition of donations directly from corporations, labor organizations, and national banks. There were also prohibitions against donations from government contractors, foreign nationals, ca...
... middle of paper ...
... 2 Mar. 2011.
Mann, Thomas E. "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Is an Egregious Exercise of Judicial Activism." Brookings Institute. 26 Jan. 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2011.
Mann, Thomas E. "Money in 2008: A Collapse of the Campaign Finance Regime?" Evolution and Revolution in the Nominations Process. Rowman and Littlefield, 2009. Print.
Martin, Patrick. "Corporate Cash Floods US Congressional Elections." The Market Oracle. Global Research, 2010. Web. 2 Mar. 2011. .
McCorkle, Mac. Lecture Notes. February 9, 2011
"The Oyez Project, Buckley v. Valeo." Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Web. 3 Mar. 2011. .
Weeks, Linton. "Did Obama Kill Public Campaign Finance." National Public Radio. 22 Oct. 2008. Web. 2 Mar. 2011.
Kenneth Vogel’s Big Money explores the invasion of money into our political system. In the novel, Vogel explains one of the most important important events that is currently happening in today’s elections: donors. This, according to Vogel, has been brought on by a ruling in the case Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission. The result of this case destroyed finance restrictions, giving Corporations and Unions the same laws of freedom of speech as individual Americans. The novel opens in February of 2012 where Vogel sneaks into a donor banquet. As our current president, Barack Obama, gives his speech, Vogel makes a note of the President’s words. In particular, Vogel focuses on one line “You now have the potential
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.
Sayers, Anthony M., and Lisa Young. "Election Campaign and Party Financing in Canada." Australian Democratic Audit. Canberra: Australian National University (2004).
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.
Congress ratified several pieces of legislation in the years following to limit the contribution of individual donors, whether they are PACs or individuals. Unfortunately, groups found ways to circumvent these statutes, ushering in the era of Super PACs. Prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court case known as Citizens United, the FEC permitted PACs to donate up to $2,500 for a given election. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that PACs can spend an unlimited amount of money on a candidate’s campaign so long as no collusion between the PAC and the candidate occurs. The implications of this decision include the following: corporations and labor unions can endorse any candidate without a spending limit and apply for tax-exempt status, individual contributions to campaigns will most likely constitute a much smaller portion of the total campaign funds, and that money will drive campaign
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed with the intent of constraining the ability of corporations and other wealthy organizations from exerting undue influence on federal elections. During the campaign for the 2008 presidential election, a conservative political organization called Citizens United attempted to release a movie denouncing Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but was required to request an injunction against the Federal Elections Commission, or the FEC. This federal agency imposes campaign finance law, due to restrictions of the BCRA- specifically, section 203, which prohibited the use of general treasury funds to fund electioneering communications, and sections 201 and 311, which mandates that the corporation
At the basis of the campaign finance reform movement is the belief that everyone should have an equal say in the government, and that wealthy individuals or special interest groups should not be able to manipulate the system through excessive contributions to unduly influence elections. The more expensive it becomes to finance a campaign, the more important the money becomes, and subsequently the less involved the candidate becomes in listening to the "voices of the average Americans." The Federal Election Commission, established in 1974, was the first independent institution created to monitor and enforce the campaign finance reforms that were designed to limit [individual or corporate] contributions that would disproportionately influence a federal election. The Commission also tries to ensure that the campaign finance information is accessible to the public, because "disclosure…is the single greatest check on the excesses of campaign finance," (Sabato).
Brady, H. E., Johnston, R., & Sides, J. (2007, May 18). The Study of Political Campaigns. Retrieved November 16, 2011, from GWU: http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/study.pdf
I’ve loved politics since I was in 6th grade, I didn’t always have the best understanding of it all when I was younger but I was able to recognize that there were a lot of citizens who were disgruntled with their government’s progress. For example, as of August 2014, congresses’ approval rating is only 14% (Riffkin, 2014). As I’ve aged I realized that the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding corporate money and personal spending limits have made the government a less effective tool for the American citizens and that is why I’ve chosen to write on the influence of money in politics. I believe this is the most important political issue that we currently face because we are unable to pass the bills that reflect the views of the American people
The McCain – Feingold act (2002) Prohibited Unions and Corporations from using their respective treasury funds to engage in what is known as “Electioneering Communications”. However, the corporations and unions would be able to form Political Action Committees (PACs) in order to express political views either for or against a candidate.
Just as Andrew Jackson had envisioned during the formation of the Democratic Party in the 1820's all organized political parties depend on the common working man to form their base. No matter how strong any party may appear at first glance its strength comes from the grass roots members in small communities throughout the country and goes upward and not from the top down. Many political leaders and organizers in the national political arena of today have forgotten this important fact.
In a recently published paper, Adam Bonica and his associates have estimated that 0.01 percent of American households (one hundredth of one percent) contributed more than 40 percent of campaign contributions in 2012. This level is far higher than had been the case in recent years. In 1990 for example only about 10 percent of donations came from this small segment of the population. However, even the 40 percent figure represents an under-estimate. It does not include contributions to organizations that were not required to disclose their donors. Were they to be included, the figure would be even