Abstract This paper reviews the laws passed in California regarding campaignfinancereform, the intended purpose of those laws and the results they have had on campaignfinance.
From the Paper "The current campaign finance system at the federal, state and local level undermines our democracy. Every day brings new revelations about wealthy contributors buying political access and favors. Voters are frustrated with a system in which their voices are drowned out by special interests. The governments of the United States - whether Washington, Sacramento at the state or, local city hall - must be accountable to the people as a whole."
Abstract The author discusses the negative effect of the Shays-Meehan CampaignFinanceReform Bill on the Democratic Party. He evaluates areas of finance, organization, public perception of victory, freedom of speech and the potential court challenge. The Democratic Party is urged to consider changes that would invalidate this legislation.
From the Paper "In theory, the bill sounds like a promising idea as well as a noble political cause. This bill would abolish ?soft money,? the unlimited monetary contributions usually made by unions, corporations, interest groups and wealthy individuals to national, state and local political parties ("Key Provisions of Shays-Meehan"). This money, according to critics, is used to influence elections, buy politicians, and is said to have caused much of the campaign finance scandals of 1996. Many believe that ending this flood of special interest money will restore integrity to decision making in congress (Americans for Reform)."
Abstract This paper examines the history of campaignfinance and campaignfinancereform for elected officials in the U.S. It discusses the main issues in the debate including corruption, disorganization, and mass media influence. it outlines the McCain-Fiengold Bill as well as the debate between Bush and McCain during the primaries of the 2001 Presidental Election campaign.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. CampaignFinanceReform 3. Issues
4. McCain-Feingold Bill
5. McCain / Bush
6. Conclusion
From the paper:
"From the first democratic election, politicians, journalists, and the public have decried the high cost of campaigns. It cannot be disputed that political campaigns rely on money from filing until the election and well beyond. From the beginning of the democratic election process, politicians, journalists, and the public have individually and collectively viewed with horror the ever-increasing cost of campaigns. Each election cycle sets a new record for spending. The critics cite the cost of presenting a candidate or issue but fail to take into consideration the increasing number of voters, distribution of constituencies, competition to spend, cost of new technologies, and inflationary pressures."
Abstract This paper discusses the ongoing debate over campaignfinancereform, explaining the major issues associated with the reform and some of the reasons for the disagreement about how campaignfinance should be implemented. In particular, the paper focuses on the McCain-Feingold bill, detailing what it would change about campaignfinance and why there is still opposition to the bill even though it is bipartisan.
From the Paper "Campaign finance reform has been debated since Richard Nixon ran for the Vice Presidency under Eisenhower. In the wake of the Watergate fiasco, some meaningful reforms were made. However, there have been no major changes to campaign finance laws since that time. The time is ripe for change, but what kind of changes do we want? Do we want changes that make a joke of our constitution or do we want changes within the boundaries of the constitution? The major issue is soft money "was originally intended to go to party-building activities and get-out-the-vote drives but which increasingly has been used as a way to funnel large contributions to presidential and other candidates." (Hamburger, Tom "Campaign-finance debate jumps to center stage // There is widespread agreement that federal election rules need repairing. But there is no consensus on how, and there is lots of opposition to the lead." Minneapolis Star Tribune, 09-28-1997, pp 21A). However, the McCain-Feingold bill, the one most advocates support, would also limit advertising. The problem with that is any changes that try and skirt around the constitution, by limiting free speech, will most likely be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Until recently most congressmen did not look at finance reform seriously."
Abstract This paper proposes a for and against argument on the issue of campaignfinancereform. It examines how campaignfinancereform has been raised as an important political issue for some time and there have been several recent proposals to deal with such reform. It looks at how these proposals deal with concerns about the growing amount of money needed for political campaigns and about how that money is acquired by candidates. It analyzes the McCain-Feingold Bill which addresses this issue and has been much debated for the constitutional issues involved. It evaluates how one side of the argument cites reasons why money is too prevalent in politics today and why the way campaigns are funded should be changed. It then cites the other side--that campaign funding is a matter of free speech and should not be changed in any way.
From the Paper "For many people today, people who can be heard on talk shows across the nation, people who speak on television and campaign for change, people who refuse to vote or have anything to do with the political process--for these people and others, political corruption is such a fact of life that they cannot separate the idea of government and government officials from corrupt practices. One reason for this perception is the knowledge that politics is expensive and that running for office requires vast amounts of money, and people want to know what those giving large campaign contributions want for their money. Public funding is an alternative to the current system, and it would be enhanced further by caps on campaign spending. The scandal today, as numerous commentators have pointed out, is not what is illegal but what is legal, with distinctions made between "hard" money and "soft" money that serve the needs of the political parties and yet do not answer the concerns of the public."
Tags: mcCain-feingold, bill, constitution, government
Abstract This paper explores the issue of campaignfinancereform in the United States. The paper looks at both sides of the issue, the first being the continuing quest for money versus complaints about how money taints the process. The paper looks at all other issues related to this topic including whether money is a corrupting influence, the constitutionality of campaignfinancereform. The paper concludes that the issues which divide public and political opinion in the U.S. may not be able to be resolved.
From the Paper "It may be impossible to bring the two sides together. The Supreme Court has ruled that donating money to political parties or candidates is a form of free speech, but this does not mean the practice cannot be better controlled--even speech is not completely unfettered from legal restrictions. For that matter, while donations may be free speech, how candidates spend those donations may not be. Public funding of elections, though, would not undercut the need for these vast amounts of money unless restrictions on spending were also imposed."
Abstract This paper explains campaignfinancing and the federal and state levels of campaigning funds. The paper discusses the financereform laws that prohibit "soft money" and place restrictions on contributions. The paper relates that if the current trend continues, eventually congressional financing will be so regulated that even an ordinary citizen will be able to run for a seat in congress.
From the Paper "It is said "Campaign financing in Congress has become so scandalous that is gives the wealthy in Congress inordinate influence, while ordinary citizens are virtually excluded from a meaningful role." It is true that Congress relies heavily on finances in order to maintain/achieve incumbency, however there are many financial restriction regarding campaign finances. Finance reform laws now prohibit the use of "soft money" (money obtain outside the restrictions of federal law). This soft money restriction came about with the passage of the Shay's- Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Law. However, there are restrictions on individual contributions, as established in the out come of the Buckley v. Valeo case. These restrictions have limited the effect of campaign spending on voters, and created little negative impact (aside from a lack of money) on the Congress as a whole."
Abstract Traces the movement to reformcampaignfinance that began after the 1972 Watergate scandal. Federal Election & Campaign Act & amendments re: spending limits and contributions by donors. Increase in "soft money" contributions. Supreme Court decisions. Legal loopholes. Problems of PACs. Donor influence. Political ramifications & role of Congress. California voters reform efforts & conflice with labor unions.
From the Paper "The simmering issue of campaign finance reform has burst into a hot topic in recent years as candidates have expended millions of dollars to win even the lowliest office. This has forced candidates to raise even more money, which has seemingly increased the influence of large donors. Those factors, coupled with the dramatic increase in "soft money," have deepened the American public's cynicism about the political system and about politicians. This sentiment has been especially strong in California, where the state's voters have considered several initiatives designed to remake the system of campaign finance. This paper will examine the issue of campaign finance, placing particular emphasis on California's attempts at reform and the impact of those efforts on large donors such as the state's labor unions."
Abstract This paper looks at the issue of campaignfinance. The common argument is that people who can?t afford to pledge money to a political campaign are being left out of the political process, thus restricting their voice on issues.As most of the "big money" in political campaigns is coming from the increasingly elite, the paper questions how much power this group gains above other groups in society. The issues surrounding this are discussed.
From the Paper "Another problem with the status quo that people are trying to change is the fact that people from districts other than the candidate's are contributing to a candidate's campaign. Theoretically, someone can only contribute to a political campaign to help a candidate for his or her cause. One must ask why someone would want to fund a political candidate if he/she is not even in his or her voting district. Somewhat of a paradox exists in this gray area. Congress at one point banned campaign contributions from outside the country because the argument was that ?"they cannot vote in our elections so why should we allow them to finance our elections"?? (PIRG) This argument extends to special interest groups who allegedly, "buy" votes of senators and representatives by funding a campaign that they cannot vote in."
From the Paper "Excessive contributions to political campaigns by industries, labor and other special interest groups help candidates cover the enormous costs of conducting a multi-media campaign. The current Campaign Finance laws do not cover many of the current situations and are filled with loopholes by which donors avoid accountability and limits ? with incumbents so dependent on this money and controlling the means by which controls may be enacted, can reform be implemented? "
Abstract This paper examines the issue of campaignfinancereform, where the issues involved are reported to be heralded by politicians yet the record of legislation does not verify their public support. In addition, the bills do not fully address the problems involved in campaignfinancereform and tend to detract attention from more important areas. The McCain- Feingold bill will be used as an example in support of this particular argument.
Abstract This paper compares and contrasts the campaignfinance laws of Montana and Florida, in an attempt to understand the primary differences between the legislative measures of the two states. Additionally, the paper discusses which campaignfinance laws appear to be the fairest and most successful laws, in terms of their ability to control and regulate campaignfinance issues.
From the Paper "In comparison to Montana, however, Florida only allows all others in the community a $500 contribution. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to exceed a $100 contribution, and no candidate can accept contributions from national, state, or county political party executive committee whose aggregate exceeds $50,000. There are still other limitations, such as limits on contributions from investment and law firms, and businesses (FL, 3).
"Furthermore, Florida limits the contributions from certain institutions of higher learning. According to the law, any educational institution wishing to contribute must first obtain a majority vote from the governing board of the institution. Without such a majority vote, the educational institution cannot contribute, either through monetary or through any indirect support (FL, 3)."
An analysis of how polictical campaigin are funded in the United States through an examination of Frank J. Sorauf's "Inside CampaignFinance: Myths and Realities".
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, 2002, $ 44.95
Abstract This paper discusses Frank J. Sorauf's "Inside CampaignFinance: Myths and Realities". The paper discusses how it is a work that provides a refreshingly new outlook on the financial nature of political campaigns and the extent to which the drive for finance affects the direction of politics. While Sorauf does not seem to have a personal agenda in his analysis, he points out that, within American politics, the push towards disallowing politicians to use public funds for campaigns is hopeless one. In his work, moreover, Sorauf shows that, since the political system sustains itself through the use of public funds for campaigning, it will not amend itself in this sense, for this would be a form of political suicide or self-destruction.
Abstract This paper examines the goings on during fund raising for electoral campaigns. The paper presents a somewhat cynical viewpoint on the practice of contributions, specifically soft money contributions. The paper explains that seemingly no one gives without getting something in return. The ethics of campaignfinancing are explored in the paper. The paper also addresses the recurring question of whether there should be a limit on campaign spending.
From the Paper " A cynic once said that the Federal Election Commission should hire Procter & Gamble to run the elections, since they have become a marketing, rather than a political affair. Just like P & G spends millions of dollars to advertise everything from Ivory Soap to Pampers, from Tide to Crest Toothpaste urging consumers to buy their products because they are "better", so the political parties, and the backers of various candidates for office, are marketing their "men" (well, a few women just to keep up the pretense that politics is an equal opportunity employer).
For the upcoming Presidential election, George W. Bush, the '90s answer to Dan Quayle, has raised nearly $70 million, based on his name and family connections; the money coming primarily from Clinton-haters and those tycoons who feel that Republican tax reform will benefit them the most. No wonder that some potential candidates, including Elizabeth Dole and Lamar Alexander, have dropped out: they could not keep up with the maddening pace of contributions to the "Son Who Would Be President"."
Abstract In 2004, John M. McHugh won the race for representation of the 23rd District of the State of New York in the U.S. House of Representatives. This paper analyzes McHugh's campaignfinance record, particularly with respect to the 2004 election. The paper also analyzes the contributions of specific Political Action Committees (PACs).
From the Paper "The trends in McHugh's fundraising record show that the majority of his money comes from PACs, but a substantial amount also comes from individuals. Also, in the first two House election cycles in which he ran, he raised substantially less money than he did in later years. I propose that this is due to the fact that as time went on, he became better established both in Washington and as a liaison to his district. His establishment within Washington and within his district allowed him to raise more money than his challenger, and this is why, in short, he prospered at the polls (Mann 75)."
