Summary: The Public Financing System

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:

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

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

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.

The demons of a misinterpreted judicial review have corrupted the legislature, the courts, and our political process. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down the McCain-Feingold Act as unconstitutional. The landmark Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission decision ruled that political spending is a form of free speech and corporations have license to contribute exorbitant amounts to politicians. Citizens United ensures denies the voices of citizens as representatives are beholden to outside interests rather than their constituency. I, Justice John B. Gibson, hold that the power of judicial review is too widely interpreted and, to keep government officials accountable, must be vested in the masses to rediscover some twinge of our once budding representative democracy.

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.

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.

In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number

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

Candidates are allowed to have a maximum of: $2,700 per election, limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections. $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC (political action committee) that supports the candidate and to fund other election-related activities. $10,000 per calendar year to a State or local party committee. $33,400 per calendar year to a national party committee. $100 in currency (cash) to any political committee. (Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50.) Contributions exceeding $100 must be made by check, money order or other written instrument “Fec gov”. End of the year financial reports filed with the Federal Election Commission shed some light on where congressional candidates are positioning themselves ahead of the June primary and, looking further, to the general election in November. Philanthropist Susie Lee reported $646,563 cash-on-hand and took in $724,774 in contributions during 2015. She's also lent her campaign $150,000, filings show. Her cash-on-hand comes within striking distance of Hardy's war chest. He reported $659,592 cash-on-hand in his filing. Lee also had support from the gaming industry, including $5,400 from Horn buckle,

There are other measures raised by the people themselves that cover many topics from important to rather silly, however, each will benefit someone along the way. It is possible that it will even hurt some people along the way. Either way, it takes a lot of money to accept or deny campaigns. Everything costs money, from the advertising to the lawyers. Sometimes they even charge five dollars for a mere signature. A few of these measures could end up raising more than forty million dollars for each

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.

Political contributions and its limit have a long history and evolution process. In 1896, an Industrialist named Mark Hanna made excessive amount of contributions to candidate William McKinley. It was controversial of the growing influence of big business in American politics. People then started to have voice regarding to regulating the

In Canada, an individual may only contribute a maximum of $1,500 to a political candidate or party. This in turn leads to an average campaign budget of roughly $100,000 in total. Campaign budgets in the United States dwarf those of their Northern neighbor. As stated earlier, this will continue to be the case until campaign finance laws are put in

As you know now incumbents are required to fundraise for various problems. There are only two main ways to fundraise. The two ways are calling for donors or hold fundraisers. Calling for donors is a serious issue with congressional fundraising. If a politician wants to ask for donations through the phone, they need to go to their party fundraising building. It is because the law states that politicians can’t accept donations on government property or their office (Sullivan). These politicians will enter the building and rent a cubicle. In the cubicle, they have an instruction binder, a Rolodex of potential donors, a telephone and an assistant, who is making sure that the politician is following the protocol (Sullivan). The candidate stays in that cubicle until they accumulate enough funds for that day. (Insert more about fundraisers). A majority of politicians felt that congressional fundraising was regret in their political career. Hon Alan Simpson, a former member of the senate, said that “I felt used when I had to go to raise money, I was embarrassed, I thought it was ugly, I thought it was demeaning”. Senator Dick Durban said that revealing the how many hours of talking about raising money will be an embarrassment to his career embarrassment. U.S Representative Steve Israel said, “I don’t think I can spend another day in another call room making another call begging for money…”These are some examples of how congressional fundraising is horrific. (insert ending