Benefits Of Campaign Finance

Benefits Of Campaign Finance
What is campaign finance? Campaign finance are all funds that are raised to promote candidates as
well as defeating them.it PAC, SuperPAC, 527s, and 501 (c) 4 are what help contribute to campaign
finances. What are these? What are their rules and what do they contribute? Since 1944 PAC's have
been around and PAC stands for a Political Action Committee. PAC's are organized to help make
and spend money when it comes to electing candidates as well as defeating them in debates. PAC's
are meant to represent interests such as labor, businesses, and ideological interests. PAC's are able to
give up to $5,000 to a candidate per election. Also, $15,000 to a national party committee and they
are able to contribute $5,000 to another PAC. A SuperPAC was
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Campaign Finance Reform Essay
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

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

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

Lack Of Campaign Finance
Campaign finance has played a major part in the American history. For example, between 1956 and
1968 the campaign spending went from $155 million to over $300 million in the context of
electronic campaigning. A current example, is Hillary Clinton top spending was $237.4M in the
context of media buy. From this information we already can see how heavily campaign finance
affects the election process. But where is all these bundles of money coming from and why need so
much. Some issues regarding campaign finance is the lack of transparency because some interest
groups do not require the person or companies to disclose their identity to the public. This can cause
people especially the companies and interests groups to donate excessive amounts of money without
telling the public the specific people who ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In addition with companies having lots of wealth there is a constant need for public officials to
engage in raising large sums of money because of these wealthy people.
THESIS_____________________________________________________________________.
Transparency is an essential characteristic and quality to have in an organization, workplace,
business, leadership, government, etc. Transparency creates an open communication and trust but,
without transparency, distortion is the result. The push to this distortion was the court's 2010 ruling
in Citizens United case which opened up the gates for independent organizations to begin to raise
and spend exceptional amounts on political advertising just like Super PAC. As I said before a lot of
the money comes from corporations and interest groups. For instance, during the 2014 midterm
election, Super PACs and other groups spent about $4 billion just to influence the voters. But it is
not

Campaign Finance Essay
'Despite several attempts to regulate campaign finance, money increasingly dominates the U.S.
Electoral process and is the main factor contributing to a candidates success' Discuss (30 marks)
Despite its popularity, there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has actually
accomplished any of the goals set out for it by its supporters. Efforts to regulate campaign finance
have been little short of disastrous. They have distorted the political process, hindered grassroots
political involvement, infringed on First Amendment rights, and helped to entrench incumbents in
office while doing nothing to address the allegedly corrupting influence of money in politics.
The 1974 amendments to the federal election campaign act ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the UK, the 2010 election cost $75m, far less than America's numbers which the two candidates
combined can easily reach the billions. President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent a combined
$30.33every second the election cycle in 2012, as a binge of campaign spending deluged voters with
rallies, banners, and of course, TV ads.
A further argument that compliments the idea that money increasingly dominates the US electoral
process and is the main factor in contributing to a candidate's success is Congress' attempts to try
and limit its influence. The Bi–Partisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 set limits on campaign finance
but was effectively struck down in Citizens United 2010. Congress isn't trying to set limits on the
amount of events a candidate runs but rather the expenditure limits. This suggests that money
increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the main factor in contributing to a
candidate's success because Congress trying to limit indicates its influence and dominance. In the
UK, there is a strict campaign finance rule, which also compliments the idea that it is a dominant
factor.
Another argument agrees that money increasingly dominates the US electoral process and is the
main factor in contributing to a candidate's success is that candidates who spend more generally
win. In 2012, Mitt Romney's

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

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

Essay On Campaign Finance
The Necessity of Campaign Finance
The right of free speech granted to all citizens in the first amendment, the necessity of funding
expensive political campaigns, and the fact that small donations make a candidate responsive to the
needs of their constituents, all make any restrictions on campaign financing unneeded and onerous.
Congress should strike down any bills attempting to reform this essential part of the U.S. election
process. Any further restrictions on donations to political campaigns will prove detrimental to the
United States functioning system of elections by limiting individuals' freedom of speech, making
our candidate's campaigns underfunded and unresponsive to the needs of the American people.
Campaign financing is, to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the most significant part of this decision was the precedent set that day, labeling money as
an expression of speech, a right protected by the first amendment in the bill of rights.
The issue of campaign financing was argued again more recently in the Supreme Court case,
Citizens United v FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non–profit argued that an ad for
the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was a
campaigning ad funded by an outside group within sixty days of the general election. Citizens
United argued the ad was illegal according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed
in 2002 that stated no electioneering committee could fund an ad 60 days before an election.
Citizens United believed Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of Bush's response to 9/11 and therefore was
an ad for the opposing candidate Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to
use their money to campaign, since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law
limiting when you can express your views politically. The court determined that the portions of
FECA and BCRA related to restrictions on corporate and labor union spending was unconstitutional
as it prohibited free speech. Citizens United reaffirmed the president set by Buckley vs. Valeo that
money is

Campaign Finance Pros And Cons
Campaign Finance has developed numerous changes to our society today due to the many cases, and
newborn restrictions in the past. Campaign Finance is a term that refers to the efforts to regulate
political campaign in terms of funding. This funding is well identified as the spending to support
political candidates and their chance campaigns. The support they receive helps them become a
more promoted candidate as well as increasing their campaign. In the case Buckley v. Valeo (1976),
James Buckley, a conservative New York senator felt that many new restrictions brought upon the
Presidential campaign finance were unconstitutional. These restrictions involved new restrictions to
federal funding, meaning that candidates were limited on what ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
With electing candidates, the PAC can offer anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 towards a candidate
committee, or a national party committee. With money being a sole factor with the PAC, it plays as a
huge role with power being that it determines influence when it comes to elections and/or
legislation. Another similar Political Action Committee is known as the Super PAC, raises an
unlimited amount of funds from corporations, unions, associations, and citizens. The Super PAC
spends its funds towards advocating for or against political candidates at a federal level. With the
unlimited amounts of money being brought to the Super PAC, they must undergo a monthly
reporting of their funds to the Federal Election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Campaign Finance
Money or Politics?
It is interesting to read about the process, terms, and important events that makeup all aspects of
today's campaign financing. While many are experts in the field of campaign financing, it is
fascinating for someone like myself who does not have an in depth understanding of this vital
electoral activity to also learn of its many defects. An activity that is supposed to ultimately be the
means that politicians use to transmit their message to the public, in addition to being a way of
enhancing democracy by allowing voters to become inform of all candidates is shown to have the
opposite effect due to its funding. These assigned readings allow individuals to grasp on to the
complexity and inefficiency of campaign financing. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One is able to discern the argument of both liberals and conservatives. I believe that the issue is far
beyond party biases and it is one that needs to be eradicated by the courts. A better system is to be
put in placed that gives equal opportunity for political candidates to compete for election and
remove the importance of money in the electoral campaigns. Clean elections like that practiced in
states like Maine, should be considered at the federal level where the government can level the
playing field for all parties and candidates by providing equal funds. Furthermore, one may even go
as far as suggesting the implementation of a federal campaign financing system that collects all
donations made by contributors and distribute such evenly; this way the government is no longer
concern with corruption but rather with political equality and

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

The Impact Of Modern Campaign Finance Laws On America
Campaign Finance
Introduction:
In 2011, two sociologists named Erik Olin Wright and Joel Rogers identified five core American
values: freedom, prosperity, efficiency, fairness, and democracy (Wright and Rogers). America's
numerous ideals inevitably cause these values to come into conflict each other. Such conflict
characterizes the debate over the implications of modern campaign finance laws in America. The
Supreme Court's ruling in Citizen's United v. FEC in 2010 undid former restrictions placed on how
money can be spent on federal political campaigns. Prior restrictions like the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 and its amendments in 1974, placed limitations on political donations by
Political Action Committees (PACs), political parties, and even individuals. Originally these
restrictions were put in place to deter corruption that could undermine the democracy inherent in US
values and elections. The Supreme Court's ruling in 2010 revolutionized the scene by declaring that
independent expenditures are protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. They further
asserted that for all intents and purposes corporations are legally viewed synonymous with people in
terms of political spending. The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized equality and freedom, but at
what cost? Critics, like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, suggest at the cost of democracy, and
ultimately corporate interests diminishing freedom in the long run. As a result of this case, more
money is now

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

Essay on The Power of Money in Campaign Finance
It may seem that with the Buckley decision, soft money and PACs the hope for reform has been lost,
however there is still hope. The Supreme Court upheld the voluntary public financing of presidential
election, which was considered a great step forward because taking public funds requires the
candidate to limit their spending on the federal level. There is also the "hard money" in political
campaigns, which is strictly regulated by law through the Federal Election Commission. Hard
money is the contrast to soft money meaning that it is the contributions made by a person or PAC
that gives to a federal campaign or political party for the use in federal elections. But of course with
one step forward there is always two steps back. Because of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As a result, all means of legal cheating had been justified.
PACs and overly wealthy individuals are not the only ones dipping their hands in the secretly
jumbled world of campaign finance. Smaller interest groups and lobbyists are also getting their
favors and paychecks. Because election laws are so crammed with exceptions these different groups
can directly and openly support a candidate spending as much money as they would like. This
loophole is referred to as independent expenditures. The Supreme Court cleared the way for smaller
groups to work directly for or against a candidate, so long as the group does not coordinate its
efforts with the candidate it supports. Although these expenditures tend to be a just a bit smaller then
soft money funds, they are far more straightforward and blunt which proves to be even more
effective (Anderson 2000).
In my view, campaign finance has gone from something that could potentially help give the power
of government back to the people to a complete joke. When trying to answer the questions of
campaign finance you get a series of hidden meanings, jumbled definitions and no real answer to
you questions, which is exactly the way Washington and campaign workers like it. The more bizarre
and convoluted the rules are the more money each campaign can make. It seems that only way to
find out any real information is to become a member of the inside, controlling the way campaigns
really operate and change.
When

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,

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

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

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

Essay On Campaign Finance
What is the current status of campaign finance reform?
Campaign Finance alludes to attempts to control the courses in which political crusades are
supported. This incorporates all burning through done to advance or bolster the advancement of
applicants, ticket measures, political gatherings and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Directions can
be connected to regular people, enterprises, political activity boards of trustees, political gatherings
and different associations. They can come as motivating forces, for example, giving open financing
to applicants who maintain spending limits, and limitations, for example, commitment confines on
givers. Authoritative endeavors, legal decisions and native activities have every single assumed ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Is reform a realistic expectation of the American political process?
Yes, reform is a realistic expectation of the American political process. The inquiry ought to be how
to change? The appropriate response is, at one time a government official clears a specific obstacle,
similar to a specific number of marks, in particular, free broadcast appointment on TV and
Radio.Reform of the financing of political gatherings and competitors is conceivable, as well as can
be extremely vainglorious. On the off chance that all limitations were lifted, the applicants could get
cash from organizations, people, guilds and of any sort of source they acknowledge. This would all
be open learning and the individual voters would approach this data. Hopefuls would be responsible
for their own financing; the competitor would be responsible not just for the cash got, but the
resulting voting. Cash is given by associations however not focusing on a particular competitor or
crusade is now and again named "delicate cash." This cash can be utilized for a political gathering
on associations, enrolling, or such things, without particularly naming an applicant. This can called
"unregulated"because it doesn't go to a specific competitor, despite the fact that some say that is the
real outcome. In this way,

Campaign Finance Debate
General Information The debate about campaign finance reform is not a new problem but has a long
history of change. The first major debate over campaign finance arose from Andrew Jackson's spoils
system. During Andrew Jackson's 1828 term, he would give out positions in his office to those who
supported him during the election. The practice would inadvertently lead to the assassination of
President James Garfield and create the first law that placed a restraint on relationships between
donors and candidates known as the Pendleton Act of 1883. The law required that civil service
positions be filled based off of merit rather than party affiliation. The regulation on campaigns
would continue in 1896 when the government took ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The debate would make it all the way to the Supreme Court, who would uphold the law saying the
law maintained campaign integrity and prevented corruption. The Supreme Court did, however,
remove spending limits as long as the money was spent to expressly endorse a candidate. In 1979,
FECA is further amended to allow individuals, unions, and corporations to give unlimited funds for
"party building." The amendment created what was called "soft money" donations and was a large
loophole in the system. In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act banned soft money, unlimited
contributions, and prohibited political ads made by unions and corporations from airing within 30
days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The law would be taken to the Supreme Court
twice in 2003 and 2007. Despite both times resulting in a 5–4 vote in favor of the law, the 2007 case
would remove the political ad ban. Finally, the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission Supreme Court case would not only dismantle the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
but allow for the formation of Super PACs which they stated did not promote corruption (Rowen,
n.d.). SuperPACs have launched campaign finance reform back into the spotlight and are crucial to
any discussion on the subject today.
The first political action committee called the Congress of Industrial Organizations would be created
in response to the Smith Connelly Act

Campaign Finance Regulations
Campaign finance regulations have the potential to stifle free speech and impede the election
process created for fair and efficient elections. These laws, which limit political spending, serves to
limit speech by restricting the average citizen's ability to both receive and deliver political messages.
Laws that restrict spending on political campaigns not only dampen freedoms of speech but but have
a counter affect on our democratic society. Regardless of which political side of the fence you are
on, these laws work more to extend the problem they purport to fix. Allowing more contributions
simply permits more people to participate in the
system – thus diffusing influence, rather than
concentrating it among the large corporations and unions. Campaign
–finance reform, then, actually
undermines the effort to
promote equal access to the political arena. This slippery slope started a
long time ago, essentially at the founding of our republic. James Madison knew that men, by their
nature, were not angels. Madison's approach was rather than limit the "factions" that naturally exist
in a free society, but rather to control their ill effects. "The society itself will be broken into so many
parts, interests and classes of citizens that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little
danger". In other words, the idea was not to limit our many factions but to allow them to divide and
limit the power of government itself so their many interests could not

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

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

Campaign Finance Research Paper
What Caused for the Reform of Campaign Finance? The reformers passed these provisions in
response to corruption, which culminated in Watergate 1972 presidential campaign (Wright, 1003).
The reformers found that these excesses were fueled by contributions collected for political gain.
Their goal was to protect the political process from distortion and corruption (Wright, 1003).
Money also caused for the reform of campaign finance. "Money does facilitate communication of
political preferences and prejudice " (Wright, 1004). It also does influence the outcome of elections.
For instance, the more money spent on behalf of the candidate gives the candidate a better chance of
winning the election. However, money could also lead to corruption because ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
However, disclosure requirements are becoming more practical and favorable. "As campaign
finance regimes transitions away from regulating which actors can spend money in elections, the
central policy and legal questions going forward will ask how much an actor may spend without
triggering contribution limits or disclosure requirements" (Johnstone, 218). However, the traditional
campaign finance regime limits contributions and mandates disclosure by making it clear to
individuals on which contributions are prohibited or spending must be disclosed (Johnstone,

Campaign Finance Reform and the Necessity of Democracy Essay
Campaign Finance Reform and the Necessity of Democracy One of the major notions of the
American system of government is that it is a government by the people, for the people. The system
is supposed to take into account the opinions and desires off all those who fall under its jurisdiction.
This is said to be accomplished by a representative democracy, where citizens elect one of there own
to speak for the group (Hastings, 04). Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that any eligible man or
woman, under constitutional mandate, should be able to run for and win any office in the American
government with no unfair advantages given to one candidate over another. This ideal still exists,
but in today¡¦s modern society, only in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Presidential candidates who agree to abide by spending limits qualify for matching funds during the
primary season, and primary winners are given funds for their general campaigns. For Example, in
1996 the Dole and Clinton campaigns each received $37 million in primary matching funds and
roughly $62 million for their fall campaigns. It is the ¡§soft money¡¨ that is causing a bulk of the
controversy. According to Common Cause Magazine, Republican national organizations raised
$75,853,472 while Democratic parties took in $65,126,376 in soft money from January 1995
through June 1996. The total for the 1996 election cycle could reach $250 million, three times more
than in 1992. It's illegal to spend soft money in support of any particular federal candidate. In
practice, though, the lines between party building and candidate promotion have blurred. Along with
the rise of soft money, there has been a proliferation of political action committees (PACs). Under
current law, PACs (which are basically an association of people with similar interests) are permitted
to contribute $5,000 per federal candidate per election. Critics say incumbents, uniquely situated to
raise PAC funds in Washington, derive an unfair advantage over challengers. While there is
bipartisan agreement that soft money is used in ways that mock the law, and that PACs benefit
incumbents, there is sharp disagreement over what reforms are

The Politics of Campaign Finance Essay
From the very first elections held in the United States, there has always been a strong link between
money and politics. During the first elections in the late 1700's you had to be a white male
landowner over the age of 21 in order to vote, meaning that you had to have money in order to have
your vote counted. It seems today that we cannot go a day with out seeing campaign finance in the
media, whether or not it is through advertisements for politicians in the media or asked to donate
money to help let your favorite candidate win. Because campaign finance has always been on the
back burner of political issues, there has hardly been any change to the large influence money has
over the election process and politicians. While money has it's ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
During his campaign McKinley supported the Gold Standard, encouraged the minority groups to
maintain their unique cultural differences within the larger societies and launched a new way of
campaign advertisement that lead him to victory.
Of course this would not have been at all possible if it were not for his campaign leader Mark
Hanna. Through the leadership of Mark Hanna, McKinley was able to forge alliances with big
businessmen, prosperous farmers and professions making his campaign budget out to be about 3.5
million dollars causing his campaign to be the most expensive of its time. With the discovery of the
large amount of money spent on McKinley's campaign several progressive politicians and
muckraking journalists accused the wealthy donors of corrupting the electoral process and alleged
that the donors were being fed special handouts and favors as a result of donating their money.
However, these cries were ignored until the 1904 political elections that lead to the beginning of the
organized progress for campaign finance reform. (Morgan, 2003)
During Theodor Roosevelt's presidential campaign he was accused of

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

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

Article Review: Campaign Finance Law
This article discusses campaign finance law and its connection to the 2016 election and candidates.
The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was the first attempt to regulate campaign
finance. It sought to prevent the political corruption the Watergate Scandal had opened America's
eyes to. This act required that information about money contributions and its contributors be
available. This meant campaign donors could no longer be anonymous. The act also limited the
amount of money political action committees (PAC) or special I treat groups could donate, it
however did not limit the amount individuals could donate. Moreover, in 1976, the Buckley v.
Valero Supreme Court decision meant that there also would not be a limit on the amount of

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

Benefits Of Campaign Finance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Lorie Harris

More from Lorie Harris (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Benefits Of Campaign Finance