Introduction
Campaign Finance Reform is used to bring a change in the political campaigns of the USA where finance is involved. Considering that campaigns for a presidential candidate run into millions of dollars, politicians need to justify the source of income for funding the campaign. This paper discusses the issues related to campaign finance reform.
Campaign Finance Reform Issues, Problems, And Opposite Views
The 2004 presidential election cost more than 4 billion USD while the 2000 elections cost the candidates more than 3 billion. While these figures are reportedly underestimated, these costs are huge and do not include the money spent by the US government to conduct the elections. The higher the post for which the candidates view, the more the money that is at stake. Candidates use a number of media such as TV spots, public addresses, and meetings, arranging for refreshment, paying for hoardings, decals, pennants, caps, and other advertising materials, political consultants, and other major sources of campaign spending have driven up the cost of running for office and so on. Right from winning the primaries to winning the nomination of the party members, candidates have to spend a lot of money so that they remain in the public memory, appear as worthy candidates and hope to win the election. In today’s fast media communication, it is the eyeballs that count and for how long a candidate appears on TV and the press that is important (Mann, 2005).
Presidential candidates would be expected to have a number of backers, who would extend support in the form of contributions to campaign funds, provide logistical support and services, and so on. A winning candidate would be a ‘milk cow’ and would be expected to favor the supporters through lucrative national and international contracts, help in bringing in more beneficial rules and regulations that would favor a certain section of the industry, and so on. Subsequently, each candidate would have backers from industries, contractors, educationists, shipping and transport companies, and so on and these entities would see their candidate as a possible financial investment. They would contribute the required amount for funding the campaigns and even buying votes from candidates. This contribution and funding have raised widespread concerns and debates with one set of people saying that candidates should be able to procure funds as they saw fit and should not be required to disclose the fund sources while the other camp says that candidates should be bound to disclosures else illegal funds would come in and the whole election process would be destabilized. A number of reform bills have been passed through the years and each had merits and demerits (Samples, 2006).
Campaign Finance Reform brief history
Democracy’s most persistent dilemma maybe that politicians need lots of money to publicize their candidacy, engage citizens, and get voters to the polls, all without appearing to buy votes or show favor to financial supporters. When George Washington first ”stood” for Virginia’s colonial legislature in 1757, it was common to lure voters to the polls with food and drink. But Washington was accused of trying to buy the election by providing 160 gallons of rum, wine, and beer to influence a mere 391 registered voters. Twenty years later, James Madison personally tried to reform the system by not distributing liquor to voters and was defeated for re-election to the Virginia legislature.
In the 19th Century, politicians would openly shakedown government contractors for contributions, and until 1883 it was legal to require federal workers to contribute time and money to their party in order to keep their jobs. Those practices, and the then-stunning cost of elections (the 1896 presidential race between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan cost $7 million, or more than $140 million in current dollars when adjusted for inflation, led to a series of reforms. Some were aimed at controlling money: in 1907 corporate contributions were banned, and laws requiring candidate campaign disclosures were passed in 1910 and 1925. Other changes were aimed at distributing power in new ways, hopefully, less vulnerable to influence, such as initiative and referendum laws allowing voters to directly approve legislation and recall petitions to remove officeholders (Public Agenda, 2007).
In 1971, Federal Election Campaign Act was brought in and made it mandatory for candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditure. In 1974, the bill was reformed and legal limits on contributions and the Federal Election Commission were formed to implement this bill. The bill placed a cap on the contribution or hard money gifts that individuals and committees could make and while individuals could make donations of $1000, Political Action Committees (PACs) could make a contribution of a maximum of $5000. On July 1, 2000, President Clinton signed legislation that would require certain non-profits that were spending millions of dollars on election-related issue education campaigns to disclose information about their operations. The new law required nonprofits organized under Section 527 of the federal tax code to disclose information about their own spending if it exceeds $500. It also required them to disclose information about contributors that give $200 or more per year.
In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or the McCain-Feingold act made revisions for some of the earlier legal limits of expenditure and also prohibited unregulated contributions or soft money. These included contributions from independent organizations or unions that do not support any candidates and are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns but are given in the form of services that are not charged. The bill also restricted outside groups from speaking about issue ads that extol or criticize a candidate’s position on any issue but stop short of asking explicitly the viewers to vote for or against that candidate. The bill also raised the limit on individual contributions to candidates from $25,000 to $30,000 per year, and on individual contributions to state political parties from $5,000 to $10,000. The McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. Additionally, the legislation required groups spending more than $10,000 a year on TV ads to disclose who paid for them. President Bush signed the bill into law in March 2002, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law’s major provisions in December 2003. decision (FEC, 2007).
Views and Counter views about the Acts
Supporters and opponents of the McCain-Feingold act argued about the ban on soft money and the impact it would have on the campaign finance system. Detractors of the act were against this bill since it severely curtailed their activities. The two leading parties, Democratic and Republican had for the 2002 elections contributed more than half a billion dollars in soft money. Since the act did not forbid contributions to be given in unlimited amounts such as $100,000, $250,000, and so on, soft money allowed corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals to influence the political process and this influence was more than the voter. Soft money contributors were actually making an investment with some expecting that their contribution would help them to get a favorable policy decision or a bill endorsement and so on. The parties used soft money to pay for activities such as voter-registration campaigns, get-out-the-vote drives, and issue ads. But contributors did not have to give funds to their party to influence an election but they could spend it themselves or give it to an interest group to spend on issue ads (Samples, 2006).
Coalitions of groups such as the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Christian Coalition, fought the provision in McCain-Feingold prohibiting issue ads funded by outside groups in the final days of a campaign. They feel that the provision infringes on their rights to free speech and their ability to weigh in on elections. The act has also been criticized for other consequences it has brought and some are lesser competitive elections, insulation of candidates, discouragement of political giving, and grassroots political activism due to the complexity of regulations. The opponents argue that the act infringes on their free speech and violates the First Amendment rights. They argue that the purpose of the free speech clause of the First Amendment is the guarantee that people have the right to publish their political views. Under this view, when the laws prohibit people from advocating for or against political candidates by restricting the content or the amount of political advertising, the laws are in conflict with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of political speech (Corrado, 2003).
Some political observers have claimed that the rise of PACs has weakened the political parties and candidates grew more resourceful in raising funds and gained access to campaign finance outside of party channels. This process has resulted in unusually long periods of fundraising and lesser time for campaigning. Another example is that disclosure requirements may lead individuals to avoid giving to challengers and increase giving to incumbents, as individual large donors might wish to avoid angering the current office-holder. Restrictions on giving and spending also seem to benefit incumbents, further entrenching them from an effective challenge. Critics have also argued that money can never be separated from political influence.
During the 2004 elections, two minor groups Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Moveon.org spent more than $4 million by respectively criticizing John Kerry and George W. Bush. In addition, many opponents point out that campaign finance regulations are excessively complicated. This, they say, prevents ordinary citizens from participating in the election process and from running for office and limits participation to a wealthy elite who can afford the legal apparatus necessary to run. In modern campaigns, legal and accounting expenses are a significant percentage of the overall budget. Opponents also claim that excessively complicated rules discourage participation more generally by dissuading people from even attempting political work or activism (Mann, 2005).
Over the years, many groups have gone to the Supreme Court to appeal against the acts but the court has always upheld the provisions of the law. In Buckley v. Valeo, of 1979, the supreme court pointed that the first compelling government interest in preventing corruption or its appearance justified some restrictions on free speech. The resulting decision upheld contribution limits, so long as they were not so low as to prevent campaigns from amassing the resources necessary to communicate effectively with the public, disclosure requirements, and voluntary public financing. It found limits on expenditures to be unconstitutional infringements on free speech. It also restricted the reach of the law to speech by candidates and parties, that is, groups established for the purpose of electing candidates, and to communications that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate, using phrases such as “vote for,” “vote against,” “support,” or “defeat (Corrado, 2003).
Campaign finance reform groups including Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, and the Brennan Center for Justice feel that the McCain-Feingold bill was necessary to salvage a political system in which the concerns of voters have been usurped by the money and influence of powerful industries and interest groups. Although none of the reform groups saw McCain-Feingold as a perfect bill, they have united in their belief that the bill is a necessary start down the road of campaign finance reform. They felt that clean money had to be used in the election system and that disclosures and restrictions on contributions was necessary to stop the election process from being hijacked by rich and powerful business groups. They felt that the election process was not a business strategy, intent on making profits to the investor, come what may (Samples. 2006).
The Status Now
Ackerman (2004) argues that in recent years, surveys have shown strong public support for an overhaul of campaign-finance laws. Surveys show more than half of Americans say elections are for sale to whoever has the most money, and a majority say high campaign costs discourage good people from running for office. Yet, when surveys ask Americans to rank the issues that are most important to them, campaign-finance reform is rated much lower than other concerns, such as education and the economy. And, in a recent survey, fewer than half of Americans said they considered campaign-finance reform an important legislative priority. So if the system needs fixing so badly, why isn’t the topic more important to voters?
Perhaps people doubt that technical changes in the fund-raising process would improve politicians’ moral behavior or reduce the influence of special interests. More than half of Americans now say that they trust politicians in Washington only “some of the time” or “none of the time,” and the reasons they give include a belief that politicians lie and are only out to get what they can for themselves. The public is also unsure as to what reforms should be introduced. For example, majorities favor banning soft money and limiting individual contributions to political parties, but 40 percent say enforcing existing laws should be enough. Nearly six in 10 oppose public financing of elections.
Three alternative approached have been suggested by the authors to bring in reforms. One perspective argues that special interests should be kept at bay by public campaign funding for politicians who accept voluntary limits on spending – and tough rules on political gifts and lobbying to prevent special interests from subverting the public interest. Another approach says the only way to reduce money’s corrupting influence is by increasing citizens’ access, influence, and power using term limits to keep politicians on a shorter leash, ballot measures to let more voters enact laws when legislators can’t or won’t, and greater public information and participation via the Internet. A third approach says reform efforts have backfired. To revive democracy, more money is required for competitive campaigns and less regulation to ease fundraising. Let people give whatever they want, but full disclosure of donations need to be made to deter corruption and conflicts of interest (Ackerman, 2004).
Conclusion
The paper has discussed the campaign finance reform and analyzed various views that both support and detract the acts. While detractors want the bill to be further modified since it infringes on their right of free speech, supporters feel that the bill allows clean money to be brought into the market. The paper has examined view from both the sides and the current thoughts and approaches to be taken to modify the bill so that is acceptable to all.
References
Ackerman Bruce A. 2004. Voting with Dollars: A New Paradigm for Campaign Finance. Yale University Press. ISBN:030010149X.
Corrado Anthony. 2003. Inside the Campaign Finance Battle: Court Testimony on the New Reforms. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN-13: 978-0815715832.
FEC. 2007. The Federal Election Campaign Laws: A Short History. Web.
Mann Thomas E. 2005. The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN-13: 978-0815700050.
Public Agenda. 2007. Campaign Reform: An Overview. Web.
Samples John. October 1, 2006. The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN-13: 978-0226734507.