Transcript Aim: To what extent is campaign finance reform necessary?

Aim: To what extent is campaign
finance reform necessary?
Do Now: Watch McCain’s
discussion of 527 groups.
Federal Election Campaign Act, 1974: Law passed in 1974 for reforming
campaign finances. Two main goals: (1) tightening reporting requirements
for contributions and (2) limiting overall expenditures. This act did the
following:
• Created the Federal Election Commission: A six member bipartisan
agency which administers and enforces campaign finance laws.
• Created the Presidential Election Campaign Fund: Money for this fund is
raised via a $3 voluntary check off box on income tax returns. Only about 811% of Americans do this.
• Provided partial public financing for presidential primaries: Candidates
who raise $5,000 on their own in at least 20 states can get individual
contributions of up to $250 matched by the federal treasury, called
matching funds. If a candidate accepts matching funds he/she agrees to
limit spending as prescribed by federal law. If they decline matching funds,
they can spend what they want.
• Provided full public financing for major party candidates in the general
election: In the general election, each major party nominee get a fixed
amount of money to cover all their campaign expenses. The FEC pays all
the costs, making the offer too good to turn down (Obama is the first
candidate to decline public funding for his election since 1976, the first year
public funding was available).
• Required full disclosure: Regardless of whether or not they accept federal
funding, all candidates must file reports with the FEC listing who contributed
and how the money was spent.
• Limited contributions: Congress limited individual contributions to
presidential and congressional candidates to $1,000.
• Political Action Committees: the 1974 act encouraged
the spread of PACs. These are created by a
corporation, union, or some other interest group to fund
candidates’ campaigns. They are closely regulated by
the FEC. They can contribute up to $5,000 per
candidate in both the primary and general election.
Those running for the House of Reps. receive the most
support from PACs.
• Buckley v. Valeo (1976): Supreme Court struck down
the portion of the Federal Election Campaign Act that
limited the amount individuals could contribute to their
own campaigns, citing free speech concerns.
• Soft Money: A loophole was opened in 1979 with an
amendment to the original act that allowed for
contributions to bypass contribution limits if these
contributions were marked for party-building expenses at
the grassroots level or for general party advertising
• Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold
Act), 2002: A campaign reform act sponsored by Sen.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
which did the following:
• Banned soft money contributions
• Increased the amount individuals could give from $1,000
to $2,000 (indexed to rise with inflation)
• Barred groups from running “issue ads” within 60 days of
a general election if they refer to a federal candidate and
are not funded through a PAC
• McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003):
Upheld provisions of McCain-Feingold.
• 527 Groups: Named for the federal tax code that
governs these groups. Political donors can make
unlimited contributions to these groups as long as their
political messages did not make explicit endorsements of
candidates by using phrases like “Vote for” and “Vote
against.”
Top 20 PACs – who got the most money?
PAC Name
National Assn of Realtors
Operating Engineers Union
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
National Beer Wholesalers Assn
AT&T Inc
National Auto Dealers Assn
American Assn for Justice
American Bankers Assn
International Assn of Fire Fighters
Air Line Pilots Assn
Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union
Laborers Union
Credit Union National Assn
Service Employees International Union
National Air Traffic Controllers Assn
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union
Honeywell International
Sheet Metal Workers Union
American Federation of Teachers
United Food & Commercial Workers Union
Total Amount
$3,122,000
$2,689,372
$2,666,300
$2,426,500
$2,415,200
$2,277,500
$2,277,500
$2,270,000
$2,075,100
$2,032,500
$1,954,300
$1,943,500
$1,893,049
$1,839,700
$1,827,975
$1,826,975
$1,814,616
$1,734,010
$1,700,250
$1,666,853
Dem Pct
57%
86%
98%
53%
41%
34%
95%
39%
75%
84%
96%
92%
52%
94%
78%
94%
53%
96%
99%
99%
Repub Pct
43%
14%
2%
47%
59%
66%
5%
61%
24%
16%
3%
8%
48%
6%
22%
6%
47%
3%
1%
0%
Hillary: The Movie
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOYcM
1z5fTs
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
(2010):
• Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of independent political
broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First
Amendment.
• The decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit
corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and
whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring
Clinton's image.
• The decision struck down key provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act,
such as campaign financing laws related to corporations and unions
which previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of
“electioneering communications” paid for by corporations in the 30 days
before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general
election.
• The ruling did not change the amount of money corporations and unions
can contribute to campaigns
• Ruling promoted creation of “Super Pacs” which raise unlimited amounts
of money to advertise issues and candidates, but cannot coordinate with
a candidate’s campaign
Arguments in favor of
contribution and spending limits
include:
• Wealthy individuals, unions, corporations, and
interest groups use political contributions to
advanced their own legislative agendas,
undermining the will of the people.
• Wealthy contributors may actually determine
who is elected to office.
• The need to raise large amounts of money may
discourage qualified persons from running for
office.
• Preoccupation with money-raising may keep
office holders from doing their jobs.
Arguments against limits on
campaign contributions and
spending include:
• Placing caps on campaign spending is an
unconstitutional limit on freedom of speech.
• Spending limits could prevent lesser-known
challengers from getting their message out.
• Attempts to reform campaign financing often
create new problems.
• Campaign reform can be achieved by relying on
complete disclosure of fund sources rather than
spending limits or public financing of political
campaigns.
Big Picture:
• Efforts to control campaign spending have
unintended consequences
• Federal Election Campaign Act, 1974:
→→ formation of PACs
• McCain-Feingold, 2002 (BCRA): →→
527s
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010): →→
SUPER PACs
• 527s and Super Pacs can spend unlimited
amounts of money to advertise issues and
candidates as long as they do not
coordinate directly with campaigns
• Contributions and spending limits still
apply
Spending limits
• http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contri
blimits.shtml
527 Ads
• http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2008/