Political Campaign Finance Reform Essay

Political Campaign Finance Reform Essay
In a country where democracy is at the heart of all citizens, these citizens need to have a stronger
voice when it comes to elections. This is why the implementation of an amendment that reforms the
financing of campaigns is disputed greatly among scholars and political officials alike. The Supreme
Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to first amendment rights, but the basis of this ruling is
unclear. Unfortunately the overturning of such a ruling would not even guarantee a restored
democracy to American elections. Some professionals see corporations and hefty donating figures as
an essential part of the election process, while others believe the Citizens United v. Federal Election
Committee has taking many of the rights that the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It also goes further than that, in revealing a theory of corruption based not on facts, but instead an
irrefutable truth depended upon, the 100,000 page record of an earlier court case McConnell v. FEC
(Teachout).
The author of the article finds this precedent to be a disturbing to set, especially when Campaign
Reform is at the peak of its life–cycle. Such an example shows neglect for developed and well–
thought–out evidence (Teachout). In the Citizens United v. FEC case, the proof of
unconstitutionality was rooted in the experience of those who passed the law, and not acquired facts
(Teachout). The choice to rule based on past understandings of corruption, instead of real–world
instances of corruption, can possibly have freighting ramifications for the Supreme Court
(Teachout). It has also made it nearly impossible to get a new Campaign Finance Reform Act passed
due to the level of opinion that was taken in the decided the ruling of the Citizens United case.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) was enacted to regulate the influence of
primary special interests groups. The BCRA did its job in limiting hard–money donation, or direct
donations, but fails to limit soft money, not directly handled by candidates. Ivan Pastine and Tuvana
Pastine, both well–renowned economists, took on the task of creating an equation evaluating the
effect of a hard–money contribution cap on special interest
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Pros And Cons Of Campaign Finance Reform
Over the last few decades, the United States Congress has debated several campaign finance
reforms. The proposals debated have included limiting independent expenditures, raising limits on
individual contributions, banning all private campaign contributions, and creating a public financing
campaign system.
Limiting independent expenditures is limiting money spent by individuals and groups, such as 527's
and super PACs, for candidates and parties that the individuals and groups are not directly affiliated
with. There are many viable arguments in favor of the proposal; one of the strongest arguments in
favor is that the most affluent groups and people should not be the most influential groups and
people. If there was no limit of independent expenditures, the influence that wealthy individuals and
groups have over elected officials would be potentially magnified. Thus, as long as there are
restrictions on the amount of money that individuals and groups may expend in support of
candidates and parties, the influence of the preponderance of the population is closer to being equal.
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In 1974, FECA–the Federal Election Campaign Act–a campaign finance law, was amended to place
legal limits on campaign elections to a maximum of $1,000 per individual and $5,000 per PAC–
political action committee–for each primary, election and runoff. However, FECA neglected to take
into account the effects of inflation. Since 1974, inflation has caused $1,000 today to equate to only
$240 in 1974, less than a fourth of the originally intended amount. Due to this, candidates need to
raise four times the amount of money that they did 41 years ago when the act was amended.
Consequently, candidates must focus more on fundraising and have less time to meet citizens and
tend to their official

Arguments Against Campaign Finance Reform
Many times the American people have asked themselves why certain topics take precedent over
other topics that may seem worthy of attention. The common speculation is that money from special
interest groups have infiltrated re–election campaigns are the ones who really have the power and
last say on what occurs in government. Many people have campaigned in order to pass a reform that
would disclose how a political campaign is funded or set a limitation on how much can be donated
to a specific campaign. Some people may argue that doing so may infringe on the rights of voters
and their decision on how much to donate or that it prevents individuals from expressing their
opinions on political issues, but by not having rules in place on what can ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
There have been occasions where anonymous donors have donated millions of dollars through non
profits in support of two ballot measures. Elections have gone from voicing the people's choice and
opinion to the special interest's choice and opinion. For example, Prop I which would have set a
moratorium on a new market–rate housing in the Mission District which was defeated by an
opposition made up of companies that benefitted from its defeat and had more 550% in funds than
the those in support. This proposition was not defeated because of what its effect would be rather it
was defeated because there were not sufficient funds to try and defend the proposition. There are
also times where donors are straight forward about who they are and are not trying to disguise
themselves, but there are far too many instances where unknown contributors solely fund
campaigns. It has come as far that there are rules currently set into place in order to limit the amount
of money that candidates can receive from a single source. With these laws and rules in place it
would seem that the problem is solved and that the matter does not need to discussed any further,
but the problem is still there and has not gone away. Part of the problem is that not everybody
complies with the laws set in place which in

We Must Not Allow Wealthy Donors to Control U.S. Politics...
According to an annual survey done by Berlin–Based organization Transparency International, the
world's least corrupt nations in 2013 were Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand. The United States
on the other hand landed in 19th place. (Infoplease.com)It's not surprising to see the United States,
land of opportunity, has dropped in ranking. Even every time when we watch the news or political
channel, more and more scandals of corrupt politicians are revealed. Based off the citizens for
responsibility and ethics in Washington or CREW, a non–profit legal watchdog group dedicated in
holding public officials accountable for their actions, about seventeen members of the past congress
member were listed for most corrupt. The political scandals we ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Reich emphasizes on the change of the political pendulum from middle to higher class by
contributions of money "With hefty campaign contributions, and platoons of lobbyist and public
relations flacks, the rich helped push through legal changes that enabled them to accumulate even
more income and wealth". The changes that emerged from the new political contributions allowed
the rich to pay lower income tax rates in comparison to the years of the great prosperity (1949–
1971).During these years, the income tax rates for the rich were at the highest we have possibly
seen. High income taxes allowed for growth in the economic opportunity. But as the separation of
the poor and richer growth farther apart we face a serious problem. Regardless the rich have the
advantage in political power and voice. In an NPR article, Wealthy "Elite Donors' Fueling U.S
Politics, shows some drastic statistics in rich donor "A tiny percentage of very wealthy Americans
funded a relative large chunk of the 2010 congressional midterm races, continuing a trend that has
been growing for two decades." The author points out that large amount of finances during the 2010
congressional campaign were funded by the rich. This was also seen during the 2012 elections,
many of the republican campaign donations came from donors who had high income. Most of these
people were wealthy with corporate ties. While on the other hand, Democrats received many
donations from small givers. By far most of the campaign

The Influence Of Corporate Lobbying In Politics
Do you feel like your vote doesn't matter? Are you dissuaded from political involvement because
you feel that you are not able to make a difference? This is a very real concern, which large portion
of is due to corporate lobbying. Corporate lobbying enables corporations to have a voice in politics,
which on some issues, sounds fair. For others however, corporations being able to buy votes acts
against the american people. Lobbying is a system of legalized corruption that must be regulated
more heavily to prevent votes being swayed away from the constituents of politicians, and toward
the interests of large corporations. With corporate lobbying being allowed in today's politics,
companies have the opportunity to use money to purchase votes. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Both of these businesses have much to gain from lobbying. Big Pharma refers to the group of the
biggest pharmaceutical companies, including corporations such as Gilead Sciences, Johnson &
Johnson, and Pfizer.(top 15, par 1) These companies lobby for issues pertaining to drugs, such as
being against the legalization or decriminalization of drugs. By keeping drugs such as marijuana
from being used medically, Big Pharma is able to prevent alternative treatment methods and
maintain their medical monopoly. Another heavily involved industry is Big Oil. Big Oil, like Big
Pharma, is used to refer to groups of the biggest corporations in the oil, natural gas, and coal
industries. Big Oil is often the target of scrutiny in regards to environmentalism, due to their
constant attempts to prevent laws that try to cut down on the usage of fossil fuels and natural gas
from being passed. Oil companies profit heavily from the use of lobbyists because the more
regulations on non–renewable resources, the less money they are able to make. This is a good
example for illustrating the ROI of lobbying, because it illuminates the generally accepted evidence
that mitigating losses is a considerably more efficient approach to increasing profit than attempting
to maximize gross

Campaign Finance Reform Essay
Campaign Finance Reform
The Democratic and Republican presidential nominees for 1999 raised an astounding 126 million to
finance their campaigns in the primaries (Godfrey). The U.S. national political parties raised a
record 107.2 million dollars in soft money contributions in 1999 (Campaign Finance Reform).
During the 1995–96 elections, public citizens estimated that an astounding 150 million dollars was
spent on "phony" issue ads designed to support or oppose congressional and presidential candidates
(Campaign Finance Reform). This outrageous influx of money into congressional and presidential
campaigns has placed a blanket of corruption and injustice over our nation's elections. With the rise
of campaign corruption, many ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Of course, such influence establishes a tyranny of the rich that our forefathers clearly wanted to
prevent. Senator Russ Feingold, a proponent of campaign finance reform, said, "The current
campaign finance system is fueling the transformation of our representative democracy into a
corporate democracy creating a political system that allots power in direct relation to the amount of
money an individual or interest group can contribute" (Campaign Finance Reform). The horror of
such a governmental system has fueled the cries for campaign finance reform. 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

Benefits Of Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign finance reform would level the playing field with all types of campaigns because it would
give each candidate the same amount of money as the others. Finance reform would help the
candidates who don't have enough money to run against the ones who are already rich. "Candidates
of enormous leadership potential but small wallets have failed due to the lack of resources
(reform)." Under a reformed campaign finance system it would be more difficult for well financed
candidates to win purely because of their money. With the reform the campaigns it would make the
elections more competitive which would make for more turnover in politics. Positives to making the
reform happen are that the individual donors would have a voice more comparable ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Public Funding is the most common with the campaigns and are funds or resources provided by the
State or Government for either political parties and/or candidates. It is argued that political parties
and candidates should have equal access to these funds. Sadly public funding laws are not clearly
stated, this leads to the misuse of these funds and resources throughout the entire campaign. "Direct
public funding is given to political parties and/or candidates in the form of money – usually as bank
transfers but at times in cash or cheque; Indirect public funding is when resources with a monetary
value is provided by the Government to political parties and/or candidates (ace)." There are many
arguments used against the public funding such as; it increases the distance between political elites
and the supporters and voters. If the political parties or candidates don't depend on their supporters,
they might be less likely to involve them in party decisions or consult their opinions on policy
issues. The public funding may make it more difficult for new political parties to gain
representation. Also with public funds, the taxpayers are forced to support a candidate whose views
that do not support. Unfortunately this is not setup for the supporters to choose if they want to
donate money to the political party, but instead forced to donate the money for a candidate they
particularly oppose. It is argued that public funds are taking money away from schools and hospitals
to give to rich politicians. When public funding is introduced to the public, not many people agree
with it because the public resources are scarce and are needed for schools and hospitals, and also
used to fix roads or build new ones along with better salaries to staff members of these jobs. Some
of the negatives to public funding seem grim but public funding is a natural and necessary cost of

Essay On Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign Finance Reform is a major issue of our day. As a Senator, I do not want my country being
run by lobbyists, special interest groups, and superPacs. I believe in campaign finance reform, and
that there should be a cap for people specifically for large companies, Super Pacs, interests groups,
to fund campaigns of their choice. Hillary Clinton is a prime example of those select groups of
people abusing campaign financing to their favor. As a politician she was controlled by those
groups, not being a politician for the American people. I would like to be clear that the opportunity
of being able to contribute to a campaign is a wonderful thing. It gets voters involved, and increases
political participation across the board. At the same time, there should be a limit to how much you
can fund a campaign because many people abuse the privilege of being able to finance a campaign.
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
First, it lessens government corruption. Our government should be here by the people and for the
people, not the corporations and interest groups. Politicians will be able to do their jobs out of
service and not out of the favor of rich political supporters or donors. Second, it gives political
candidates an even playing field. This will give way to new politicians, making the arena of politics
more competitive and fair. The limited amount of money for a Super Pac can fund is $5000, in the
long run that number should be lowered, you never know. Even President Trump is for campaign
finance reform, because of there is too much money controlling Washington. He has mentioned
numerous times of his distaste of Citizens United, and superPacs running over governments
politicians . In today's political world, money controls all politicians in Washington

A Soldier Lies Dying On The Battlefield, Cannonballs Fly...
A soldier lies dying on the battlefield, cannonballs fly overhead. In the distance redcoats clash with
patriots. They fight for two very different ideologies. The patriots fight for the freedom of the people
and for the rights they're denied under the king, while the redcoats fight for their king and power.
The revolutionaries were fighting against a power hungry tyrant, that cared for only money and
power. This relates to present day as the corporate elite fight against the people to fatten their
checkbooks. Campaign finance presses a real issue today because the people are no longer in control
of the government. Elections are bought and paid for by billionaires with certain corporate agendas
in place. Bernie Sanders has recently brought this issue up to attention claiming to campaign for the
people, and be free of super pacs. Sanders wishes for a government beholden to the people of
America, not millionaires and billionaires. On his website he stated "In the year 2016, with a
political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled by billionaires and
special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people, by the people, and for the
people is beginning to perish in the United States of America."(Get Big Money Out of Politics and
Restore Democracy – Bernie Sanders.) The American campaign finance system is broken and
corrupt. To understand the problem of the current system, it is essential to analyze: The history of
campaign

Unfree Speech: The Folly Of Campaign Finance Reform
Because I seemed to find compelling arguments in both articles, making this decision was quite
difficult. And while I believe that this subject is definitely worth further research, at this time and
after some deliberation I am going to go with Bradley Smith's, "Unfree Speech: The Folly of
Campaign Finance Reform" as giving the overall more persuasive case between the two articles.
One of the main points of Smith's article that made his side more persuasive is the point that "...the
assertion that lawmakers vote to please financial contributors is simply not supported by the bulk of
systematic evidence". In fact, serious studies have actually showed that campaign contributions play
little role in voting. Also, there is the point that the money

Essay about Campaign Finance Reform
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court also sited in that same ruling that, "In a free society by our Constitution, it is not
the government, but the people–individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as
associations and political committees–who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate
on public issues in a political campaign" (Keena 6). While it may be a violation of freedom of
speech to limit television ads, many of today's candidates have made a mockery of the existing
legislature regarding campaign financing. Ex–president Bill Clinton bent the rules and laws more
than possibly any elected official ever, and certainly farther than anyone since Richard Nixon. Thad
Cochran, a veteran Republican senator from Mississippi, stated, "Clinton used his own party and
had it operated out of the campaign office, which was the White House, to coordinate expenditures
by the Democratic Party and his election campaign in an unlimited amount, using soft money to pay
for the ads, with his own chief–of–staff making the decisions about the kind of advertising, and
Clinton himself was involved in writing some of the ads that were actually run by the Democratic
Party using soft money" (Williams 10). No elected official had ever gone so far as to run soft money
ads out of his own office, let alone rewrite the ads himself. It is cases such as this one that are prime
examples for why there is such a need for new laws to govern campaign financing.

History Of Campaign Finance Reform
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Tillman Act of 1907 prohibits money contributions to political campaigns by partnerships and
national banks (Profile: Tillman Act, 2015). The Act was ignored by loopholes that the citizens and
corporations found (Profile: Tillman Act, 2015). The Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1910
expands on the Tillman Act of 1907 (Profile: Tillman Act, 2015). The FCPA expands on the Tillman
Act by establishing limits on how much campaigns can spend on US House election campaigns
(Profile: Tillman Act, 2015). The Act additionally requires knowledge of all monies spent and
contributed during federal campaigns (Profile: Tillman Act,

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.
Campaign finance has been plagued by continued deregulation. The system has long been anything
but perfect, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
With the knowledge that political advocacy has drastically increased following deregulation of the
campaign finance system, and resulted in a lower turnout, fixing our system is not an easy matter.
Many politicians have championed bills such as tester–murphy which unilaterally reverses the
Citizens United court case. This bill would allow FEC to regulate money and stripe organizations
first amendment protections. However according to outsiders such as Hasen this bill has two key
problems. The first issue is in relation to its limitations. Under this bill the press would still be
allowed political advocacy protections. With the rise of the internet it also allows for shadow press
agencies to be created online and participate in political advocacy. Due to this loophole the funds
from current donors would simply shift from a 501c4 to a press outlet. The second issue is this bill
would need to become an amendment. With the divided political landscape, it is extremely unlikely
a super majority could be formed by either the legislative body or the states to form an amendment
(22–28). If Tester–Murphy was simply passed a bill swiftly overturn the

Essay on Campaign Finance Issues
GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
We are not a democracy, yet we do have a voice in our own government. Elections are the choice
microphones for many citizens. There on Election Day, they have the right of making their voices
heard; however, many interest groups and a few individuals seem to have a louder voice due to
campaign financing:
No U.S. official should be beholden to one or a few groups. And no group or individual should have
a greater claim on our elected leaders than any other. That's the way it should work. But it is
growing clear to more and more Americans that it doesn't (McCarthy 24).
Recently, it has been the trend to try to make sure the opinions and concerns of minorities are duly
noted and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Money is the most degrading, corrupting force in American politics today (McCarthy xi).
The idea behind fundraising for elections was a success at first, giving donors another way to voice
their opinions and open up the doors for communication once the elected officials fully realized who
they owed their position to. However, this went too far. Those whose candidate did not win were left
with an official who will accept the ideas of a past donor before any others. This favoritism, while
beneficial to certain donors, proves damaging to others. Also, when before, all donated and spoke
their mind, now only certain groups and people donate and not even all of them speak their mind.
"The individual doesn't count anymore"(McCarthy 25).
THE HYPOTHESIS
Now that I have given about three pages of background information on the political processes, now
would be a good time to introduce my Representative. Ken Bentsen represents the 25TH District of
Texas. He is a democrat and has served as representative since 1991. I actually have a few theories
regarding the reasons he voted the way he did and why certain groups financially supported his
campaign. Scholars for thousands of years have pondered the question of whether it was the chicken
or the egg, which came first. In the case of campaigning and finance, such seems to be the question.
Because voters had the opportunity of watching his career before 1996, it's practically impossible to
be able to tell

History Of The Campaign Finance
History of The Campaign–Finance in the U.S
Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state,
and local levels. At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by
the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Although more campaign
spending is privately financed, public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President
of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must
be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are
usually subject to spending limits on money.
To gain votes from recently enfranchised, unpropertied voters, Andrew Jackson launched his
campaign for the 1828 election through a network of partisan newspapers across the nation. After
his election, Jackson began a political patronage system that rewarded political party operatives,
which had a profound effect on future elections. Eventually, appointees were expected to contribute
portions of their pay back to the political party. During the Jacksonian era, some of the first attempts
were made by corporations to influence politicians. Jackson claimed that his charter battle against
the Second Bank of the United States was one of the great struggles between democracy and the
money power. While it was rumored that The Bank of the United States spent over $40,000 from
1830 to 1832 in an effort to stop

Buying Favor: Why Congress Depends on Funding From...
There is a problem with Congress. The previous sentence summarizes the collective sentiment of the
general public concerning the legislative branch of the federal government. A 2010 Gallop poll
revealed that over eighty–nine percent of Americans have no confidence in Congress (Lessig 2). It is
theorized that Congress is so far out of favor because it has been unable to resolve the nation's most
important issues, such as Medicare, Medicaid, immigration reform, and the growing budget deficit,
due to seemingly trivial reasons. Some theorize this lack of significant legislative action is due to
growing partisanship between the system's dominate political parties, the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party. According to Mark Brewer, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Lessig observes that theorists of political corruption do not normally focus on good souls. They
focus on the "venally corrupt," who bribe officials in an effort to gain privilege, or the
"systematically corrupt," who make influential individuals dependent upon the government to
ensure they protect the government (Lessig 7–8). These good souls are not necessarily evil as they
do not seek to cause harm. They are simply taking advantage of the system to secure prosperity.
Lessig also asserts that legislators within Washington, D.C. are not evil; they are simply good souls
sullied by the systematic corruption within the institution. Lessig is not alone in his positive view of
Washington's bureaucrats. In his book, Divided We Govern, David R. Mayhew insists that elected
officials view themselves as "problem–solvers," hardly the mindset of nefarious villains concerned
only with what they stand to gain from being in Washington, D.C. (130–131). Lessig later affirms
that this dependence on campaign funding has led to both parties being unable to accomplish their
partisan objectives. During his presidency, Ronald Regan established three central goals for

Effective election campaigns have always relied on the candidates' ability to raise money. Even in
the days before television, radio and the internet, it still took money to get the word out to the people
in a far–flung land. However, today's candidates are faced with raising larger and larger amounts of
money with each new election that comes along.
Individuals are the primary source of campaign funding at the federal level, with political action
committees running a close second. Their donations are regulated donations and are referred to as
"hard money." Organizations also contribute money to campaigns but often do so indirectly in ways
that allow them to skirt regulations pertaining to campaign finance. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
I agree that, deep down, there is something wrong with the way in which campaigns in the United
States are financed. There is little doubt that large corporations and/or special interest groups have a
"quid pro quo" expectation attached to the outlay of large sums of money (an expectation of a direct
exchange of campaign contributions for favorable government treatment).
That being said, however, I also think an equal (perhaps greater) problem is the role the media plays
in any election. Journalists have human biases and often times they allow them to show by
promoting those candidates with whom they agree philosophically or, even worse, providing more
coverage for those they know will produce higher ratings.
But assuming that campaign finance reform is the way to go, the First Amendment's guarantee of
free speech means any changes will need to be considered constitutional by the United States
Supreme Court. Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres proposed "a system of
modified public financing coupled with an anonymous campaign contribution process" as outlined
in their 2004 book entitled Voting with Dollars: A new paradigm for campaign finance. This type of
financing would involve two components: patriot dollars (federal funds) and secret donations. All
voters would be given a $50 publicly–funded voucher (patriot dollars) to donate to the campaign(s)
of their choice. Both

U.s. Federal Campaign Finance Reform Proposal
One main issue raised by presidential hopefuls revolves around campaign money received by
candidates, donated by multi–million dollar corporations. Although it remains illegal for these
corporations to directly donate large sums of money to political campaigns and political parties, the
fear that political and judicial figures in the American political systems are being bought out by
these affluent corporations still worries an inordinate amount of people in the United States. In 2009,
the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC whether these wealthy companies had the
constitutional right to air advertisements they paid for using company expenditures. Similar to
Supreme Court cases within the past half–century, the case suggests that ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
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.
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

Campaign Finance Reform Should Be Restricted And Monitored
In American society, campaign finance reform is continuously a topic of discussion. This year's
2016 election will be the most expensive campaign with presidential candidates Donald Trump and
Hilary Clinton is running for office. By this coming November, campaign spending for all
candidates spending for all candidates who ran in this year's election will be an estimated total of 4.4
billion dollars ("Do We Really Need"). For campaign finance to experience reform, we must first
acknowledge that the current system is broken. Campaign finance should be restricted and
monitored, laws can create more incentive for candidates to disclose political spending. Disclosing
Political spending helps voters make informed decisions at the ballot box, and fosters trust in the
political process ("Do We Really Need"). States regulate campaign finance in three ways by
disclosure and reporting requirements, setting contribution limits to candidate campaign, and by
providing a method for public financing of elections. Candidates who run for Federal Office as
President of the United States, Vice President, and Senator or House of Representatives have the
responsibility to contact the Federal Election Commission to obtain forms and information regarding
Federal Campaign requirements and filing deadlines (De Gruyter). States use public financing of
elections is by providing means by which candidates can accept public funds to conduct their
campaign. If a candidate takes into this program making

Limits Of Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign finance reform is largely debated throughout the United States. Supporters of reform say
that this is the only way to keep elections and campaigning fair, and that there should be at least
some sort of reform to make sure that anyone is capable of running for office. Opponents of some
sort of reform say that this would be unfair and that candidates should be able to collect funds from
wherever they can, and that restricting this would violate their rights under the first amendment. In
my opinion, there should be a certain level of campaign finance reform. Limits should be placed on
how much money one can receive from private unions and corporations.
The first reason why limits should be placed on how much money once can receive when

The Inevitable Limits Of Campaign Finance Reform Summary
The article The Inevitable Limits of Campaign Finance Reform by Tabatha Abu El–Haj, main
subject matter is the influence that super wealthy political people have in politics because of their
money. This article examines how Wealthy politicians can invest in their political views and use
their wealthy to buy elections. The articles explain that this is possible because Laws have been
created protecting an individual's first amendment right to influence elections.
The thesis of The Inevitable Limits of Campaign Finance Reform is by empowering and mobilizing
ordinary Americans through civic and political organizations corruption by wealthy political figures
will be seized or at least minimized. Wealthy political figures, unions and corporations

Campaign Finance Reform: The History, Present, and Future...
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.
Patronage was a prevalent part of early elections. During most of the early history of the United
States, there was no legislation passed on behalf of campaign finance ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Each of these committees would donate less than $100; therefore, avoiding the need to report the
donation (Fuller). In the 1930s two acts were passed, the Public Utilities Holding Act in 1935 and
the Hatch Act in 1939. The former of the two prohibits utility companies from making contributions
in federal campaigns, while the latter bans most federal employees from making contributions to a
candidate in national elections and from participating in political campaigns (Rowan). The Smith
Connelly Act was passed in 1943, which bans labor unions from making direct contributions to
federal campaigns. However, unions create political action committees, or PACs, to make campaign
contributions. The Taft–Hartley Act was passed in 1947. This Act bans corporations and unions from
making independent expenditures in federal political campaigns (Rowan). 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

Example Of Campaign Finance Reform
Campaign Finance Reform It is time that the voters are the only one's deciding elections. Candidates
should be running on issues, not money. They should not be allowed to get money from wealthy
investors, who keep the playing field unlevel. Any person who wants to run for office, and is
qualified to run for office, should be able to regardless if they have a lot of money to set up a
campaign or not. It is time for Campaign Finance Reform. The Fair Elections Now Act was
introduced by Senator Durbin of Illinois in February 2014, and it would change the way
Congressional candidates can finance their elections. The Act stipulates that qualified Congressional
candidates would earn grants, matching funds, and television vouchers based on a minimum amount
of small–dollar contributions from their local community (Durbin, 2015). This bill has still not been
adopted, or accepted into law. This type of campaign finance reform is needed for Presidential
elections as well. I think reform of the American political system is possible. There are many
movements right now that have already begun to raise awareness of the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Regulating soft money has been difficult because of constitutional issues that protect First
Amendment rights, and Congress' rights over regulating political parties must be focused on
preventing fraud or corruption (Mason, 1997). Soft money is used to mobilize campaigns by using
the money to support voter registration drives, and other similar activities designed to jump start a
candidates' campaign (Brennan Center, 2000). For this reason, soft money is important to an election
campaign, and recently the amount of soft money raised for campaigns has skyrocketed. It has
become a concern because it is largely unregulated and can be used to gain an unfair

The Merits of Campaign Finance Reform
Jpz777 03/05/2013 Order # 2087510 The recently concluded national election cycle was defined by
frenzied campaigning and feverish advertising blitzes that lasted for more than a year, as American
citizens were once again charged with the enormous task of voting for their next leadership class.
What began with our forefather's modest experiment in democratic governance, built upon a
foundation of informed citizenry selecting candidates who best represented shared values on the
relevant issues of the day, has since become slowly distorted by the pernicious influence of
corporatized campaign funding. The American political apparatus has traditionally been the arena of
the affluent, because "like almost every pursuit in this free–enterprise country, political campaigning
is a business ... and, as in many businesses, success often goes not to the entrepreneur who brings a
product to market first but to the one who exploits it best" (McManus, 2010). While candidates on
the local, state and federal level have always been beholden to major donors, modern elections were
forever transformed from contests of relative merit to proverbial spending sprees after the notorious
decision delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission. This landmark 5–4 ruling, made along strictly partisan lines in 2008, reversed more
than a century of law regarding electioneering communication and essentially declared that the First
Amendment's explicit

The First Step Towards Lasting Campaign Finance Reform
Final Paper:
The First Step Towards Lasting Campaign Finance Reform
"You don 't put "vote Bartlet" in the ad, you can pay for it with unmarked bills from a bank heist if
you want to." – Bruno Gianelli (Fictional character, The West Wing, S03E06, "Gone Quiet")1
Debates about the just and proper financing of campaigns for public office can be traced as far back
as the Federalist Papers. On one side are those that believe any restriction in the frequency or
amount of individual, corporate or union donations is an unconstitutional assault on the freedom of
(political) expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. On the other side are those that worry
about the fair stewardship of elections. Do those with the means to make more ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
According to OpenSecrets.org,
"Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and
individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super
PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or
quarterly basis –– the Super PAC 's choice –– as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs,
Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates."2
While Super PACs do need to make financial disclosures to the FEC on a monthly basis, their ability
to take donations from corporations leaves them amble room to leave the names of their end donors
undisclosed. Many Super PACs report donations as coming from one or multiple 501(c)(4)
(politically active non–profit) organizations that do not have to disclose their donors. This is referred
to as "the Russian nesting doll problem" among campaign finance reform advocates.
It is worth noting that the rise of Super PACs and other forms of unregulated campaign spending is
of concern to politicians too. President Obama, as part of his 2010 State of the Union Address, said,
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of
law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –– including foreign corporations ––
to spend without limit in our elections. I don 't think American elections should be

A Soldier Lays Dying On The Battlefield, Cannonballs Fly...
A soldier lays dying on the battlefield, cannonballs fly overhead. In the distance redcoats clash with
patriots. They fight for two very different ideologies. The patriots fight for the freedom of the people
and for rights they're denied under the king, while the redcoats fight for their king and power. The
revolutionaries were fighting against a power hungry tyrant, that cared for only money and power.
This relates to present day as the corporate elite fight against the people to fatten their checkbooks.
Campaign finance presses a real issue today because the people are no longer in control of the
government. Elections are bought and paid for by billionaires with certain corporate agendas in
place. Bernie Sanders has recently brought this issue up to attention claiming to campaign for the
people, and be free of super pacs. Sanders wishes for a government beholden to the people of
America, not millionaires and billionaires. On his website he stated "In the year 2016, with a
political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled by billionaires and
special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people, by the people, and for the
people is beginning to perish in the United States of America."(Get Big Money Out of Politics and
Restore Democracy – Bernie Sanders.) The American campaign finance system is broken and
corrupt. To understand the problem of the current system, it is essential to analyze: The history of
campaign finance,

Freedoms Versus Federal Election Commission
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the Presidential race of 2008, it is estimated that the combined spending of outside groups,
political parties, and candidates totaled to over five billion dollars (Beneson and Tarr 2012).
American politics has created a culture of "political elites" that requires every candidate to raise
millions of dollars. Although organizations like the FEC tracks these large sums of money, the
amount of money a person must spend publicizing and promoting themselves has become
uncontrollable. Jeb Bush's Super PAC has already raised over 103 million dollars and filmed
countless hours of interviews of the Candidate, skirting regulations within McCain–Feingold that
prevent outside sources from directly creating scripts and advertisements with the Bush campaign
(Miller and Elliot 2015). Although Bush and his supporters may have the constitutional right to raise
millions of dollars, and publish deceptive advertisements, their actions still promote a sentiment of
power that should not be allotted to one person. Regardless of the strides that have been made to
reduce corruption within campaign finance reform, and support citizen's most basic freedoms to
support whichever candidate they wish, the entire campaign process has become too politically elite.
The necessity for million dollar campaigns and extensive financial backing prevents

Negative Consequences Of Campaign Finance Reform
As we look back, the problems that began decades ago have only developed into more complex
problems. With campaigns being bought out by special interest groups, cyber security attacks
increasing, and the impact of climate change, these vital issues need to be addressed or we will face
insurmountable consequences.. When running for office, special interest groups donate large sums
to a candidate's campaign with expectation that the candidate, if elected, will support their cause
This activity clouds the purpose of public service. An elected official is elected to serve his or her
constituents, not the will of special interests groups. Campaign finance reform needs to be addressed
to restore the faith of the American people in their elected

Introduction
Each year billions of dollars are spent on getting candidates of various offices of government
elected. Many candidates have had tremendous success through the efforts of much needed
monetary contributions to their campaign. Contributors range from unions, religious leaders,
organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), the National Rifle Association
(NRA), and senior citizens groups. When these groups, known as special interest groups, donate to
candidate's campaign, they expect the candidate to respond to their issues. Because special interest
groups, as well as private citizens donate more and more money to campaigns, there is some
concern that there is a great need for campaign finance reform.
The total ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)
When Senators Russ Feingold and Senator McCain introduced the first version of the BCRA on
September 7, 1995, soft money was still in the reform. "Soft money contributions, which were
unregulated donations made to a political party, were not allowed under the law to influence
individual candidates or campaigns. But in practice, soft money given to political parties was
funneled to individual campaigns, or used to run phony "issue ads" that were actually
advertisements for a candidate. As the parties collected more and more soft money, it became
impossible to ignore at least the perception that large contributors, corporations, and labor unions
were buying access to politicians. In the 1992 election cycle, the parties raised a total of $86 million
in soft money. In 1996, that number more than tripled to $262 million. And in 2000, soft money
receipts nearly doubled again to $495 million, nearly half a billion dollars. It was the equivalent of
hanging a "For Sale" sign on our nation's capital (Feingold, 2004, p. 1). The McCain–Feingold–
Shays–Meehan act bans these soft money contributions.
On March 27, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(BCRA), Public Law No. 107–155. The BCRA contains changes to the federal campaign finance
law, to include:
A prohibition on "Soft Money" –– i.e., solicitation and use of nonfederal funds by

Essay about Campaign Finance Reform
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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Furthermore, these laws are particularly important because they deal with discussion of public issues
and debate on the qualifications of candidates. This sort of speech allows citizens to make an
informed decision about which candidate they will elect. This is crucial to the operation of the
government, for those who are elected will shape the nation in a profound way. As legal scholar
Alexander Meiklejohn argued when explaining the necessity of protecting political speech, "self–
governance can only exist insofar as the voters acquire the intelligence, integrity, sensitivity, and
generous devotion to the general welfare that, in theory, casting a ballot is assumed to express." For
these reasons, the ability to spend money on elections is essential to the First Amendment, as it
allows for the communication of ideas and opinions that are crucial to democracy. The need to
protect this first amendment right, however, is balanced against the need to avoid corruption in
federal elections. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) attempted to revamp the
structure of campaign finance, particularly dealing with eliminate corrupt uses of campaign
contributions. Money in the form of a contribution can easily be seen as a bribe, or an attempt to
influence a candidate in the contributor's favor. FECA required

Public Policy Priorities
To examine the effects of public campaign funding on local policy priorities, I need to create a
dataset containing variables related to mayoral and city council races. While mayoral election and a
strong mayoral system would have the most direct linkage between publicly funded campaigns and
policy direction, since the mayor has a significant authority to direct policy initiatives and budget
priorities. The results of evaluating mayoral races only, however, produce a small number of
observations leading possible biases in the results (Adams, 2007: 189). The inclusion of city council
races increases the number of observations for a better sample. By including city councils, the
effects of public funding the various government structures––strong ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
This is counter to the very argument to have public campaign financing, not only increase
competition but to engage citizens in the process. This would indicate the system does not promote
citizen engagement or influence on policy agendas. Policy priorities continue to benefit mostly a
segment of the city population who supported the winning candidate (Trounstine, 2008).
Stakeholders, therefore, still have influence over government officials who have the power to deter
election rules and reforms. Yet, it might be also the case, that elites are adept at adapting the
constraints of institutions and alternative ways to influence the current political environment through
other means(Mullin, 2008; Adams,

The Decision Making Process Of Governmental Officials
The decision making process of governmental officials directly correlates with the status of the
United States of America. Often society provokes questions regarding the ethicality of political
decisions, specifically in terms of campaign finance reform. Because of the vulnerability of our
country to succumb to corruption, the monetary contributions to fund campaigns is a great concern
to many Americans. Many citizens see unlimited spending as a corruption of our government, and
therefore promote the regulation of expenditures. Inversely, it can be argued that funding and
spending should not be restricted, and if a candidate can raise the money, he or she should be able to
acquire it. It seems almost obvious that regulations aren't ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Specifically, a bill was passed by a Democrat in Congress, which was primarily aimed at
expenditures of the Nixon Administration (Cohen, Elfin). These laws were ignored by some
candidates and most donors, whom continue to find loopholes in such laws and contrarily give their
desired amount of money. As demonstrated in the University Of Florida Journal Of Law & Public
Policy, because the laws are constantly disregarded it can be suggested that individual candidates are
extremely motivated and interested in ensuring maximum profits. The FECA ultimately failed to
control the monetary costs of the federal election campaign, even though it was revised and
amended four times, correlating with the diminishing of the Federal Election Campaign Act Of 1971
(Stefanuca). The inability to regulate such costs illustrates how political candidates and members of
Congress tirelessly work to bypass the law of FECA on spending limitations. Intelligibly, if said
candidates and congressmen disagree with the FECA, it can be believed to be ineffective and
unethical. The law may also stand in the way of potential donations. It can be concluded that, if a
clause is revised multiple times, the government is clearly having great difficultly perfecting the law
while simultaneously keeping candidates and governments officials satisfied (Stefanuca). The FEC,
or Federal Election Commission is an agency founded by the US congress

Campaign Finance: The Importance Of Money In Politics
During every election season in America, citizens show their concern about the substantial amount
of money used by politicians in their campaigns for various positions. Seemingly, increased
expenditure in politics is a tradition whose impacts have escalated as more parties enter the political
scene. Many American citizens think that the United States political system would perhaps be more
people–centered if little money was spent on campaigning. Particularly, many people think that
election financing contributes to corruption in the American political system; they believe that
money used in politics causes a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor in the country. In
the recent campaigns, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump advocated for significant reforms in
the campaign finance system. It is important for the electoral body to have an oversight on political
party financing to secure the democratic process in the country and to ensure that the wealthy do not
have an undue advantage over other people because they can finance candidates for various
positions who will be indebted to them.
In the United States of America, the terms hard money and soft money are usually used ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Federal Election Commission case. Despite the fact that money in politics is viewed in a negative
way, it plays an important role in contemporary politics. Name recognition for politicians is not
debatable as it is a key factor in the world of politics. Besides, campaign advertisements are useful
to people who spend little time on television following political events, as they need to make
decisions concerning their choice of leader. In this case, such as people may not have political
information and may rely on advertisements to make informed

Soft Money Campaign Finance Reform
Soft Money
"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" Common Cause President Scott
Harshbarger 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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On the other hand, others claim that federal regulation of soft money is "an unwarranted intrusion
into the financing of non–federal elections" and fear that complex regulations will have "a chilling
effect on grassroots electoral activity" (FEC).
Since the 1980's, critics of the soft money system have strived to close the perceived loophole. In
1984, Common Cause petitioned the Commission for stricter rules regarding soft money allocation,
hoping to close the loophole. When the Commission concluded that the evidence of soft money
abuse was insufficient to rationalize the suggested changes, Common Cause filed a suit that led to a
Court order for the FEC to clarify its allocation regulations. In 1990 the Commission approved of
new regulations that would require all national party committees to provide full disclosure of the
soft money accounts, and all committees (with federal and non federal accounts) to use specific
formulas to "determine the amount of federal funds required to be spent for any activity that benefits
both federal and non federal candidates" (FEC).
While the Commission maintains that they have proceeded "as far as statutory authority would
permit, short of barring the combined use of federal and nonfederal fund altogether" (FEC), others
maintain that soft money is exactly what policy makers have intended to exclude from national
elections

What Is Campaign Finance Reform?
Overview
What is Campaign Finance Reform?
Campaign finance regulation refers to attempts to regulate the ways in which political campaigns are
funded. This includes all spending done to promote or support the promotion of candidates, ballot
measures, political parties and more. Regulations can be applied to natural persons, corporations,
political action committees, political parties and other organizations. They can come in the form of
incentives, such as providing public financing to candidates who abide by spending limits, as well as
restrictions, such as contribution limits on donors. Legislative efforts, judicial rulings and citizen
initiatives have all played roles in shaping the regulation of political contributions.
Reformers cloak their plans for changing the campaign finance system in the language of corruption
because of the Supreme Court. In Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 case that put corruption at the center of
campaign finance law, the Supreme Court held that the only acceptable justifications that could be
used to impose limits on campaign contributions were the government 's interests in preventing
"corruption and the appearance of corruption." All other justifications would result in laws being
struck down for violating the freedoms of the First Amendment. (Mazo, 2014)
History of the Legislation Tillman Act
Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina sponsored the bill that became known as the Tillman
Act. The bill passed the Senate on June 9, 1906. On June

Campaign finance issues are complicated in the United States by the fact that the funding sources of
the Republican and Democratic parties differ so sharply. As a result, any reforms intended to affect
one kind of funding are likely to adversely and disproportionately affect one of the two parties.
Furthermore, while most issues on which elected officials decide concern benefits for constituents.
Campaign finance reform involves changing an institution that benefits those who make the
legislative choices. Today this is an issue of popular debate, which there are many varying proposals
and even more varying opinions.
The McCain–Feingold and Shays–Meehan bills are the best known and most visible of ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A second school of thought is to eliminate contribution limits and increase disclosure. In contrast to
the McCain–Feingold and Shays–Meehan bills, the proponents of this plan believe that campaigns
are under–funded, and that increased spending would help enhance competition and allow
candidates to get their messages out, that the funding system needs to be balanced by enhancing the
role of individual contributors and that there should be full disclosure of all donations and assurance
that they are recorded and made available publicly in a timely fashion.
A third theory on campaign finance reform is that of FCC imposed free or reduced–rate broadcast
time for candidates. This theory argues that the largest single expense of campaigns is television
advertising. Free or reduced rate broadcast time for candidates would eliminate much of the need for
raising large amounts of campaign funds. Radio and television airwaves are public property and
therefore broadcasters have a responsibility to provide programming in the public interest. Free or
reduced–rate broadcast time fits neatly with the requirements that broadcasters serve the "public
interest." Because Congress won't act, the Federal Communications Commission should.
The fact is that the majority of Americans

Campaign Finance Reform Analysis
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 campaign finance reform in the United States brings funds during a candidate
election for presidency. This makes a great point when running for election, but the main problem
with it is that the bill has not been updated within current times. Which problems may this cause?
One of the main problems with being outdated is the

Essay on Campaign Finance Reform
The politics is a stage for many different characters of whom each is trying to convince their
audience to give them the loudest cheer and the grand applause. Politicians who played the acts will
do their best and sometimes will do everything to win the hearts of their audience and that means to
win at all cost. Politics involves money for it is the way to make campaign possible that is why there
are campaign managers and campaign funds to whoever will run for any office in the government.
Every politicians needs money or funds to support his or her candidacy in such a way that it will
help them reach their constituents because it also requires money to get to them, to their homes, to
their cities and to their ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Among those cases includes then President Bill Clinton and his Vice–President Al Gore though their
campaign funds contributors were acquitted – Franklin L. Haney the idea that it is possible for
politicians to be influenced or use illegal money for their campaign activities. The case of lobbyist
Jack Abramoff in 2006 is another figurative representation of how campaign donations can lead to
fraud (Schmidt and Grimaldi) and may also encourage other forms of misappropriation and
corruption among politicians and their quest for public office.
Under other circumstances the campaign finance reform is quite necessary for some valid and small
reasons that could adequately enhance its strength or change some behaviors in using campaign
funds. The current Campaign Finance Reform already embedded precautionary measures under the
law and protection related to campaign activities and elections such as Disclosure. At any event or
during an election campaign period all states are required to report specific sources and expenditures
of a campaigning official (NCSL) and his activities to monitor where and how they use their
campaign funds. Also exemplifies under the reform are limitations or contribution limits whereas
every politicians are bound in order to circumvent potential exploitation of the campaign funds or
sources as well amounts of donations from supporters including bans on corporate contributions.
Corporate contributions is also plagued with some

Campaign Finance Reform Analysis
"American democracy is not about billionaires being able to buy candidates and elections"
(Sanders). Campaign Finance Reform is a necessity in our country because our current system is
inadequate. Reform will allow for less influence that could lead to corruption, a fair playing field for
candidates, and not as much time or money being wasted on campaigning. In order for our system to
be satisfactory we must alter the current rules. To begin, according to Kay J. Maxwell, the average
citizen should have the same impacts and influences in the government as a corporation does. Today
with more than 6 billion dollars spent on the presidential elections, where the money came from is
of concern (Berr). Because of the Citizens United v. FEC supreme court case decision, corporations
are considered to be people when it comes to political free speech (Mock). Since the court decision
concluded that donating money to campaigns is a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This has caused there to be a focus on campaigning rather than actually tending to their duties
(Mock). For democratic districts, the DCCC lays out a modeled 10–hr work day that should consist
of a 3–4 hour period consisting of fundraising and call time. Some congressmen, however, agree
that fundraising takes up time that can be spent on being experts on issues that need to be resolved
(Grim). If a campaign reform is carried out, candidates would be forced to limit their time on
fundraising and campaigning, and instead be forced to spend their time achieving the most that they
can accomplish in their position for the good of the people. Reducing time on campaigning will also
reduce the money spent on it. By having restrictions, campaigns may become faster and shorter,
causing them to save the candidate's campaign money. Money that would otherwise be used
unnecessarily on a

Political Campaign Finance Reform Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Jennifer Wright

More from Jennifer Wright (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Political Campaign Finance Reform Essay