Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Political Science Campaign Finance Reform 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 citizens and politicians have developed concerns with the current system of campaign finance and are demanding reform. Recently, the issue has surfaced in Washington as the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills have been introduced in Congress. The core of the debate over campaign finance reform revolves around the constitutional battle of free speech versus maintaining democracy. While people want to cleanse elections of the increased corruption and monetary influences, concerns of infringement upon the first amendment of the Constitution arise. But, the first amendment has been used as a loophole in politics for too long. While infringing on the first amendment may threaten one of our sacred constitutional liberties, the corruption of campaign elections could eradicate the very democracy that is the backbone of our constitution which provides Americans with such liberties. The problems that arise with the increased role of money in elections are plentiful. With such a growth in large individual contributions, citizens get the sense that elections are being bought and sold. People fear that large contributors often support candidates that would work to meet their specific needs in Congress instead of the needs of the entire society. 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 in the presidential general election receive full public funding (Godfrey). The Revenue Act was the first of a series of laws designed to implement federal financing of Presidential elections. Under the act, citizens were given the opportunity to check a box on their tax forms authorizing the federal government to use one of their tax dollars to finance Presidential campaigns in the general election (FEC). Congress implemented the program in 1973 and, by 1976, enough tax money had accumulated to fund the 1976 Presidential election. It was the first publicly funded federal election in U.S. history (FEC). 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 approximately 150 million dollars was spent on "phony" issue ads (Campaign Finance Reform). The problem with these issue ads is that they are often not regulated by campaign finance laws. John Heck, the executive director for Common Cause, said, "[The question] is about how to draw a correct line between issue advocacy, which is not subject to regulation, and electioneering or campaign advocacy, which clearly and constitutionally is" (Campaign Finance Reform). The Center for Responsive Politics reported that, "Issue ads, which may raise hot-button issues and even attack or support specific candidates, are legally considered non-political as long as they stop short of explicitly calling for any candidate’s election or defeat" (Campaign Finance Reform). The rise of these ads is an added concern to what needs to be reformed. These issue ads are just another outlet that soft money can flow into. The exact aim of the McCain-Feingold proposal is to curtail soft money and to ensure that all funds used in campaigns are fully disclosed and regulated. Under the act, a strict ban would be placed on all soft money contributions. All state parties—the loophole that soft money stems from—would be prohibited from spending soft money on activities which affect federal elections (Campaign Finance Reform). Activities such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts could only continue with funds raised under the federal limits (S. 25). The bill would also crack down on all individual expenditures, which are expenditures that "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate which is made without the cooperation or consultation with any candidate. The legislation would require outside groups to provide full disclosure of all expenditures to the Federal Election Commission (S. 25). Another attack point of the McCain-Feingold bill is on issue ads. Current law permits the government to regulate campaign expenditures that "expressly advocate" the election or defeat of a candidate, but not "issue advocacy" expenditures that only attempt to raise and discuss issues without supporting a particular candidate. The legislation expands on the definition of "express advocacy" to include any general public communication that uses expressions such as "vote for", "support", or "defeat" (S. 25). Further, private groups would be prevented from running issue-advocacy advertisements for or against specific political candidates within 60 days of an election. For example, pro-life and pro-choice groups would both be barred from telling voters about the stances that the candidates in an upcoming election had taken on the issue of abortion rights. The impact of such provisions would be staggering. Many of the specifics of the McCain-Feingold legislation aim to make all elections fair. To decrease the considerable advantages that incumbents hold in elections, the legislation extends a prohibition to the entire calendar year of an election for frank mail (S. 25). The firm demands for full disclosure in the legislation are not present only to confirm that all financing is legal, but also to allow candidates to equate their opponents spending. For example, if the targeted candidate of an independent expenditure is complying with spending limits, the candidate is entitled to an increase in their spending limit equal to the amount of the independent expenditure made against them or for their opponent: "This will enable complying candidates to respond on a timely basis to such expenditures without the constraint of a spending cap" (S. 25). Another prominent proposal for campaign finance reform that is hovering in Congress is the Shays-Meehan bill. Like the McCain-Feingold bill, the legislation proposes stricter limits on independent expenditures and bans soft money (Cantor). But there is a larger focus on the roles that labor unions play in elections. The bill makes an attack on the extortionary practice of labor unions using their members’ dues for political purposes. With the proposed legislation, unions would be forced to produce voluntary funds for any campaign contributions or independent expenditures (Cantor). The bill also zeroes in on "coordinated expenditures" by political parties. Coordinated expenditures are in direct connection with a candidate or campaign (S. 25). Parties would still be able to continue making coordinated expenditures, but only if they agree not to make independent expenditures in the same campaign (Cantor). Campaign finance is an urgent issue that must be addressed as soon as possible. Too many people are losing their voice in politics simply because they cannot provide expansive monetary contributions. The argument that contributing money to a campaign is a constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech is the main combat against campaign finance reform. Opponents say that limiting the amount of money that people can contribute in support of their candidates impedes on free speech rights. But these bills do not completely restrict free speech. They simply impose restrictions on campaign financing to ensure that elections remain a fair, democratic process. If anything, allowing unlimited large contributions from individuals or groups impedes on the free speech privileges of those unable to contribute large sums. Although these people can still contribute to campaigns, their contributions are quelled against the influence that big money contributors can have. The American Civil Liberties Union says that campaign finance reform would hurt powerful minority groups like the NRA or Phillip Morris that wish to improve their situations through political influences. But campaign finance reform would be better for the vast majority. Enacting stricter limits and regulations would allow everyone to have a substantial and equal voice in politics. We must consider the opportunity cost of unlimited contributions to campaigns—the end of our representative democracy. Is that really something that the American people are ready to relinquish? Anne McBride, president of Common Cause, said, "As long as soft money contributions are allowed, big money will drown out the voices of the average citizen, diminishing our democracy" (Campaign Finance Reform). Campaign finance reform is inevitable and the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills are both effective tools to start such a necessary reform. Bibliography: Word Count: 1978
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.