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 Necessity of Democracy Campaign Finance Reform 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 theory. Multi-millionaire candidates, with large party support and a seemingly unstoppable fundraising team can squelch almost any competition without resources as far-reaching as theirs. Therefore many people are calling for a reformation of the system, a way to once again even the playing field and allow true democracy to blossom. The controversy is largely split down party lines. First off, what are the current rules concerning campaign financing? Concerned with the escalating costs of campaigns, lawmakers in 1974 passed legislation limiting individuals to $1,000 donations per candidate for federal office (capped at $25,000 per election) and making presidential campaigns, to an unprecedented extent, publicly financed. (The law also imposed spending limits on House and Senate races which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 1976).To the national political parties, individuals can give $20,000 each year in what's called "hard money," funds that can be spent directly on a presidential or congressional campaign. Contributors can give unlimited amounts of so-called "soft money," donations to the political parties for party-building activities. 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 required. Unsurprisingly, most Republicans and Democrats have very different ideas for campaign reform(Willsmith 59). One measure being pushed by Democrats is a ban on the so-called "soft money," unrestricted donations to the parties which, ostensibly, are for party-building activities only, and not for specific campaigns. In practice, both parties have used those funds to pay for massive advertising campaigns that clearly benefit specific candidates. Democrats say it has fueled a money chase that favors wealthy special interests over average citizens, while causing some of the fund-raising excesses revealed over the last year. Republicans, who have been more successful than Democrats at raising soft money, claim just the opposite. Indeed, many GOP lawmakers -- most prominently, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky -- say that American campaigns are underfunded. Pointing out that the $1,000-per-candidate contribution limit has remained unchanged since the 1970s, they say contribution limits should be raised. Congress should stiffen disclosure requirements, they say, so voters can better know where a candidate's money comes from. Opponents also contend banning soft money would violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee. While constitutional scholars have differed on this point, it's clear that a soft-money ban would face a court challenge. "We're going down the road here of bureaucratizing the Bill of Rights in a way which will be a disaster for this country," Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said(Jackson 69). Despite such drastic language, it is said that the issue is really dependent on the current opinion of the American Public (Hastings 05). For any reform to pass, most observers believe the public must demand it. Though polls suggest Americans want some form of campaign reform, efforts to galvanize critical momentum appear to have fizzled. Likewise, Grassroots efforts haven't exactly taken off. A bipartisan group began a petition drive in March 1997 to gather symbolic 1,776,000 signatures supporting Campaign Finance Reform. At the White House, President Bill Clinton launched a ¡§crusade¡¨ for reform headed by former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Republican Sen. Nancy Kassebaum-Baker of Kansas. The results of these efforts were mediocre at best, showing just how divided the public is on the issue, and once again reaffirming how hard it will be to make significant progress (Jackson, 68) But there seems to be a nagging question at the heart of this matter: Is all of this commotion necessary? Should drastic measures be taken to reform the current system? Some would enthusiastically say ¡§Yes!¡¨ while others would dismiss it with a definite negative response. Those who believe drastic change is necessary are pushing many different articles of legislature through Congress in an attempt to revise the current laws in time for the already launched 2000 presidential campaign. The partisan breakdown of opinions on what can be done to reform the current methods are as follows: „h Banning or limiting political action committee(PAC) donations. „h Banning ¡§soft money¡¨ donations. „h Spending limits on campaigns in exchange for free or reduced-price advertising. „h More public financing of campaigns „h Prohibiting labor unions from spending compulsory union dues on political activities. „h Raising limits on individual donations. „h Restricting donations from PACs. Source: CNN.com Obviously there are some differences in opinion. However what¡¦s to be done about that one major sticking point, ¡§soft money¡¨? Is it time to get rid of it¡¦s presence in American political finding? The answer is a resounding yes. One proposal that attempted to deal with it¡¦s elimination was the McCain-Feingold Bill, introduced by Wisconsin Senator Russel Feingold (Democrat) and current GOP presidential hopeful Senator John McCain of Arizona. The Latest Version of the bill has several main provisions: „h Soft Money A ban on soft money contributions to the national parties from individuals, corporations, and labor unions. „h PACs (political action committees). PAC contribution caps would be lowered from $5,000 per candidate per election to $2,500. „h Independent expenditures Spending by groups determined to be in direct support ("express advocacy") of a federal candidate would come under federal regulation and would require full disclosure. „h Lowered campaign spending Candidates that raise 60 percent of their funds from in-state sources, and who agree to limit their own spending ($25,000 per election in small states, $50,000 per election in large states) would be granted 30 minutes of free TV time; reduced costs for advertising; and breaks on direct mail costs. „h "Leveled Playing Field". In races where one of the candidates does not abide by the spending limits, the other candidate would be permitted to accept individual contribution up to $2,000, PAC donations up to $5,000, and addition party funds. „h No Overseas Contributions No contributions would be allowed from citizens ineligible to vote in U.S. elections. A previous version of McCain-Feingold was filibustered by Senate Republicans during the 104th Congress, and while there is currently some bipartisan support for the measure, most Republicans oppose it, citing several objections. First, they say it would unconstitutionally restrict free speech. McCain-Feingold supporters, in turn, have produced a letter signed by 126 constitutional scholars attesting to the constitutionality of banning soft money. Republicans also say McCain-Feingold would tilt the playing field toward the Democrats, who they say benefited from labor unions' $35 million ad campaign in 1996 congressional races. The GOP would like to see a ban on labor spending compulsory union dues on political activities, a non-starter proposal for Democrats. Republicans also say that McCain-Feingold, in placing greater limits on campaign spending, would increase the influence of the media. A major cost of campaigns, they point out, is the high cost of advertising. Many Republicans, who believe that the media is biased in favor of Democrats, fear that money limits would restrict their ability to get their message out. Given the near unanimous Republican opposition, Republic Representative Sam Farr introduced his own revisions of the finance proposals. Under his plan: PAC funds would be capped at $8,000 during each two-year election cycle. (The current limit is $20,000 for candidates who face both primary and general elections; McCain-Feingold either bans or limits PAC contributions to $1,000.) Imposes voluntary spending limits, with incentives such as free or reduced-price TV time for candidates who agree to cap their spending. Bans "soft money" contributions given for generic advertising, political party-building and get-out-the-vote drives. Farr¡¦s plan however does not offer as comprehensive a solution as the McCain-Feingold bill. The Republican party would do the American people a great injustice to prevent this legislation from becoming law and forever protecting the common man¡¦s right to become an official in his government. It is in the best interests of the common man that McCain-Feingold, and it¡¦s sweeping revisions of current Campaign Finance Law, become the standard now and for the many years of democracy that are to follow. As begin this new period in history it is exceedingly important that we retain the ideals that helped America become the power it is today, formed so many years ago by our founding fathers. Although we enter a new millennium, we must remind ourselves that the precedent of the past will not become obsolete in the face of modern politics. The constitution itself was written in a way that allows the government to adapt to fit the ever-changing needs of the people. The basic concept of free and equitable elections are in jeopardy. It is time to take advantage of that flexibility to its fullest extent. Bibliography: Hastings, William; The American Political Landscape; Harper Press 1994 Jackson, Brooks; The Campaign Finance Itch; Time Magazine 11/97 Willsmith, Fred Greed or Liberty?; U.S. News & World Report 2/98 www.CNN.com Word Count: 1950
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.