The Deep Patterns of Campaign Finance Law (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Forty-Year War on Money in Politics: Watergate, FECA, and the Future of Campaign Finance Reform
2016
This article examines the 40 year history of the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms. Since Watergate, federal campaign finance law has been based on a model of low contribution limits and unlimited expenditures. That long experience provides sufficient evidence to ask and answer a fundamental question: Are we better off today than we were before the Watergate era campaign finance reforms? The thesis of this article is that the answer to that question is no. In fact, in many respects, the current system is worse than that which prevailed before Watergate. This article concludes that contrary to the polarizing rhetoric that surrounds the national debate over campaign finance law, the historical record indicates that both reformers and their opponents offer reasonable policy alternatives to the dysfunctional system that prevails today. For example, twentieth-century political history at the federal level and ongoing experience at the state level demonstrate that a deregulated camp...
Soft Money Evolution: Transient State of Federal Campaign Finance Laws
Laws relating to Campaign Finance Reform, or how money can be raised and spent in elections, has been an issue broached by Congress multiple times over the past half century. However, each time Acts such as the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) or the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) are passed, they become essentially ineffective a few years later when the Supreme Court declares portions of the law unconstitutional. In addition to connecting the dots between these Acts of Congress and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that overturned portions of these laws, this paper relates precedent and law to the Constitutional rights afforded by the First Amendment. My paper also chronicles the evolution of soft money, which are funds exploited by Political Action Committees (PACS). After providing examples of how our nations’ federal election laws are exploited and rendered ineffective in what has become a cyclical system of campaign finance reform, I argue that there exists a zero-sum cyclical cycle of campaign finance reform as laws have been rendered essentially useless due to subsequent court decisions. The soft money evolution must be stopped. Congress needs to create a permanent solution in the form of a fully Constitutional Act that protects the freedoms of all Americans while upholding the integrity of our electoral system.
Campaign Finance Reform: Restoring Trust in American Democracy
George Washington Institute , 2024
Campaign finance reform is a critical issue for the health of American democracy. Rising campaign costs have led to increased influence of wealthy individuals and corporations, eroding public trust in government. This research examines the current state of campaign finance laws, their effectiveness in limiting the influence of money in politics, and potential reforms to strengthen democratic accountability. By analyzing recent court cases, campaign finance data, and public opinion surveys, the study offers recommendations to restore public confidence in the electoral process!
Judicial activism and the American election process 1
This article analyses the phenomenon of judicial activism in the American electoral process. It tries to estimate whether the political system of the United States of America has become hostage to the law-making role of the judiciary, which actively controls the compliance of election laws with the Constitution, thus drawing courts into purely political processes, or whether the nature of the disputes settled by judges rather makes it impossible for them to avoid being influenced by and influencing issues of a political nature. The article analyses various legal acts and court decisions, mostly concerning the current status of federal campaign finance in the United States, and demonstrates that more spheres traditionally reserved for other branches of government are being appropriated by the judicial branch.
2016
Over the last three decades, the Supreme Court has curtailed meaningful limits on political campaign spending and contributions. Te alarming, but predictable, result is the rise of a small group of wealthy elites who make large political contributions with the goal of infuencing election outcomes and policymaking. We are lef with a government that is less responsive to the needs and concerns of ordinary Americans, and more responsive to the needs and concerns of economic elites. To understand what big money in politics means, it is important to understand the "who" and the "what" of political donations: who is spending big money on elections, and what do they want? In the following analysis, we uncover the demographics (the "who") and policy preferences (the "what") of the donor class that dominates U.S. campaign funding, in order to shed light on why money in politics is distorting our democracy in favor of economic elites, and particularly w...
Does the US Campaign Finance System Favor Republicans
2017
There is a common belief that the pro-regulatory approach of Democrats, makes them more determined in the fight against big money in campaign elections, whereas Republicans, supporting recent Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United v. F.E.C. and McCutcheon v. F.E.C., benefit from the system more than their political counterparts. The aim of the article is to analyze the real character of the U.S. campaign finance regulations, both from legislative and judicial perspective, and to determine which political party benefits from the system: Republican or Democratic? By underlining the Buckley rule that ‘money is speech’ the Author suggests that campaign contributions and spending are deeply rooted in the character of American political system determining the political future of candidates of both political parties. The article refers to election cycles since 1970s, but it mainly focuses on recent election cycles, including the 2016 presidential election.