). The main provisions of the FECA placed limits on how much individuals and political committees could contribute to a single campaign and further instituted "public funding." In presidential primaries, individuals could donate up to one thousand dollars to a candidate and the government would match these funds up to $250 (FEC). The catch is that if the candidate chooses matching funds, he or she must abide by specific spending limits (FEC). In the general election, presidential candidates have the option to accept $60 million dollars from the government (FEC). But in this case, the candidate can only use $50,000 of his own money for any further funds (FEC). The act came under judicial review in the Buckley vs. Valeo case as the constitutionality of it was questioned. From that decision, limits were not set on how much a candidate could spend on his election, but there was a $1000 dollar limit set on how much could be contributed (FEC). All of these types of contributions that can be regulated are known as hard money. Despite the strict regulations and laws, contributors have found several loopholes to flow money into campaigns and elections. These funds that are raised outside the limitations and prohibitions of the FECA are categorized as soft money(Campaign Finance Reform). Because the FECA does not limit how much money can be contributed to political parties, contributors wishing to donate vast sums of money can give money directly to the parties without specifying a certain candidate. The money eventually ends up in the hands of the candidate (Godfrey). This issue of soft money is what has stemmed most of the controversy of campaign finance.Another glaring issue entangled within the web of campaign finance is the use of issue ads. Issue ads are cleverly designed to support or oppose congressional and presidential candidates (Campaign Finance Reform). During the 1995-96 elections, public citizens estimated that ap...
