As you all should know, MONEY RULES THE WORLD!!!
Money and politics go hand-in-hand. The more money you have, the better candidate's chances are for winning elections. As with anything, there are people who have more money, or at least access to more, and those who do not have as much. This presents a problem for those with less, but does not mean that they will not win the elections they are running in. Throughout the history of Congress there have been reforms and litigation that attempted to control the flow of money, but the flow cannot be controlled. Through the use of loopholes, parties have been able to funnel potentially unlimited amounts of money into their candidate's campaign funds. In this blog I will explain the effects of money in elections, the different forms of money, and litigation that has attempted to control the flow of money.
First I would like to talk about the financing of political campaigns and the regulations placed on them.
There are two terms that I would like to define in order to aid you in the understanding of how campaigns can be financed.
Hard Money
Refers to money that is raised under the guidelines set out by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). This money may only come from individuals or political action committees (PACs), and have strict limits placed on the amounts that they can give. An example of a limit is "Corporations and labor unions cannot contribute to campaigns for federal elections, and individuals are limited to contributing a maximum of $1,000 to a federal candidate, and $20,000 a year to a political part for the purpose of telling people whom to vote for." Eventhough there are limits, this money can be used for any purpose in a campaign such as paying for advertisements endorsing candidates.
Soft Money
This refers to money that political parties can raise in unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, PACs, and other sources. While each source may give an unlimited amount of money, the use of that money is not allowed for advocating the express election or defeat of a candidate. Instead, the law says that soft money may only be used for "party-building activities" such as voter registration drives or advocating an issue or law.
Soft money was not heard of until 1978. That year the Federal Election Commission issued an administrative ruling that the funding rules established by law only applied to political campaigns, and not to "party building" activities. The Commission did not clearly state what constituted as a party building activity, but it basically defined it as any activity that did not explicitly tell people to vote for a specific candidate. An example of party building are ads that educate voters about issues and laws. This is where the loophole of soft money came from.
More Money More Reforms
Reforms to the amount of money that can be used for political campaigns have been present as early as 1907. These reforms compound off of each other, creating new regulations on the use of money in campaigns.
During the early 1900's, President Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In 1907, Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907 to ban such contributions. The Tillman Act of 1907 was followed by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act enacted in 1910. The act and subsequent amendments sought to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections, regulate spending in campaigns for federal office, and deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.
In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and Political Action Committees. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties, and PACs. Other prohibitions were set by the act which range from no donations from federal nationals, no cash contributions over $100, and no contributions in the name of another. The amendments of 1974 also established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure, and administer the public funding program.
Following the 1974 amendments to the Act, a Supreme Court decision struck down or narrowed several provisions in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. In the case of Buckley v. Valeo, Supreme Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form free speech protected by the constitution. Those portions of the law that were considered unconstitutional were struck down. The Court also stated that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.
The last big reform was in the form of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). This act was designed to address two major issues:
The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local race or issue discussion
In the following video, Senator Arlen Specter addresses his issues with the Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance reforms.
Now that you know all about the reforms of political campaign financing, I would like to briefly discuss how money works in elections.
Money and Campaigns
The cost of campaigning has risen significantly within the past century. Campaign costs for average winning candidates show a substantially increase in the House from $87,000 in 1976 to $891,000. A winning Senate race went from $609,000 in 1976 to $4.9 million in 2002. One of the major causes of this rise is the use of media in campaigns. As the years go on, more money must be pumped into advertisement for campaign. This presents a problem for those who do not have access to large amounts of money. An example, is a challenger for a congressional seat. The incumbency for such seats have access to larger amounts of money to fund their campaign and have the recognition of their name. Let's take a look at some numbers concerning challengers and incumbents. In 2000, The average expenditure for incumbents in the House was $774,000 versus $295,000 for a challenger. Along with an easier access to money, incumbents gain perks that help cut down on costs for campaigning (ex. Mailing to districts and free travel to districts). Although incumbents have an advantage over challengers, the challenger, with proper resources and a solid campaign plan, can overcome the thresholds placed on them when running against an incumbent.
The following clip is from a Q&A session between Kenneth Gross, author of Ethics Handbook Entertaining and Lobbying Public Officials, and a caller who essentially wanted to know how challengers can beat incumbents.
An Ode to Money
In this blog I have explained the effects of money in campaigns, the terms for money, and litigation that has sought to control the flow of money. Money cannot be controlled. Dating back to the early 1900's, regulations on campaign financing have been found to have positive and negative effects. Loopholes have been found to funnel large amounts of money in to campaigns. Those who have easier access to money, such as incumbents, create a threshold for challengers. As stated before, MONEY RULES THE WORLD!!!
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_campaign
Date Accessed: 4/10/2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx Date Accessed: 4/11/2010
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/
Date Accessed: 4/13/2010
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28105.pdf
Date Accessed: 4/13/2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States
Date Accessed: 4/9/2010
Money and politics go hand-in-hand. The more money you have, the better candidate's chances are for winning elections. As with anything, there are people who have more money, or at least access to more, and those who do not have as much. This presents a problem for those with less, but does not mean that they will not win the elections they are running in. Throughout the history of Congress there have been reforms and litigation that attempted to control the flow of money, but the flow cannot be controlled. Through the use of loopholes, parties have been able to funnel potentially unlimited amounts of money into their candidate's campaign funds. In this blog I will explain the effects of money in elections, the different forms of money, and litigation that has attempted to control the flow of money.
First I would like to talk about the financing of political campaigns and the regulations placed on them.
There are two terms that I would like to define in order to aid you in the understanding of how campaigns can be financed.
Hard Money
Refers to money that is raised under the guidelines set out by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). This money may only come from individuals or political action committees (PACs), and have strict limits placed on the amounts that they can give. An example of a limit is "Corporations and labor unions cannot contribute to campaigns for federal elections, and individuals are limited to contributing a maximum of $1,000 to a federal candidate, and $20,000 a year to a political part for the purpose of telling people whom to vote for." Eventhough there are limits, this money can be used for any purpose in a campaign such as paying for advertisements endorsing candidates.
Soft Money
This refers to money that political parties can raise in unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, PACs, and other sources. While each source may give an unlimited amount of money, the use of that money is not allowed for advocating the express election or defeat of a candidate. Instead, the law says that soft money may only be used for "party-building activities" such as voter registration drives or advocating an issue or law.
Soft money was not heard of until 1978. That year the Federal Election Commission issued an administrative ruling that the funding rules established by law only applied to political campaigns, and not to "party building" activities. The Commission did not clearly state what constituted as a party building activity, but it basically defined it as any activity that did not explicitly tell people to vote for a specific candidate. An example of party building are ads that educate voters about issues and laws. This is where the loophole of soft money came from.
More Money More Reforms
Reforms to the amount of money that can be used for political campaigns have been present as early as 1907. These reforms compound off of each other, creating new regulations on the use of money in campaigns.
During the early 1900's, President Theodore Roosevelt asserted the need for campaign finance reform and called for legislation to ban corporate contributions for political purposes. In 1907, Congress enacted the Tillman Act of 1907 to ban such contributions. The Tillman Act of 1907 was followed by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act enacted in 1910. The act and subsequent amendments sought to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and special interest groups on the outcome of federal elections, regulate spending in campaigns for federal office, and deter abuses by mandating public disclosure of campaign finances.
In 1971, Congress consolidated its earlier reform efforts in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), instituting more stringent disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and Political Action Committees. Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties, and PACs. Other prohibitions were set by the act which range from no donations from federal nationals, no cash contributions over $100, and no contributions in the name of another. The amendments of 1974 also established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure, and administer the public funding program.
Following the 1974 amendments to the Act, a Supreme Court decision struck down or narrowed several provisions in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. In the case of Buckley v. Valeo, Supreme Court upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form free speech protected by the constitution. Those portions of the law that were considered unconstitutional were struck down. The Court also stated that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.
The last big reform was in the form of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). This act was designed to address two major issues:
The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local race or issue discussion
The proliferation of issue advocate ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds
In 2010, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Court held that the corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections are forms of free speech. This decision came after a dispute as to whether a non-profit corporation, Citizens United, could air a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the corporation could advertise the film using Hillary Clinton's image. This was in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The Courts decision was met by a political outcry, stating that this holding would give rise to corporations controlling elections. Here are two videos that show this outcry.
In the following video, Senator Arlen Specter addresses his issues with the Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance reforms.
Senator Chuck Schumer addresses hos disgust for the Supreme Courts ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Now that you know all about the reforms of political campaign financing, I would like to briefly discuss how money works in elections.
Money and Campaigns
The cost of campaigning has risen significantly within the past century. Campaign costs for average winning candidates show a substantially increase in the House from $87,000 in 1976 to $891,000. A winning Senate race went from $609,000 in 1976 to $4.9 million in 2002. One of the major causes of this rise is the use of media in campaigns. As the years go on, more money must be pumped into advertisement for campaign. This presents a problem for those who do not have access to large amounts of money. An example, is a challenger for a congressional seat. The incumbency for such seats have access to larger amounts of money to fund their campaign and have the recognition of their name. Let's take a look at some numbers concerning challengers and incumbents. In 2000, The average expenditure for incumbents in the House was $774,000 versus $295,000 for a challenger. Along with an easier access to money, incumbents gain perks that help cut down on costs for campaigning (ex. Mailing to districts and free travel to districts). Although incumbents have an advantage over challengers, the challenger, with proper resources and a solid campaign plan, can overcome the thresholds placed on them when running against an incumbent.
The following clip is from a Q&A session between Kenneth Gross, author of Ethics Handbook Entertaining and Lobbying Public Officials, and a caller who essentially wanted to know how challengers can beat incumbents.
An Ode to Money
In this blog I have explained the effects of money in campaigns, the terms for money, and litigation that has sought to control the flow of money. Money cannot be controlled. Dating back to the early 1900's, regulations on campaign financing have been found to have positive and negative effects. Loopholes have been found to funnel large amounts of money in to campaigns. Those who have easier access to money, such as incumbents, create a threshold for challengers. As stated before, MONEY RULES THE WORLD!!!
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_campaign
Date Accessed: 4/10/2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/public-agrees-court-campaign-money-free-speech.aspx Date Accessed: 4/11/2010
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/
Date Accessed: 4/13/2010
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/28105.pdf
Date Accessed: 4/13/2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States
Date Accessed: 4/9/2010
