Campaign Finance Reform
- Submitted by: tpettus
- Views: 1284
- Category: Politics
- Date Submitted: 04/10/2010 01:34 PM
- Pages: 5
- Report this Essay
Campaign Finance Reform
Money and politics have always gone hand in hand. During the 2004 presidential election alone, presidential campaign spending topped $1.2 billion. The vast sums of money inherent to American politics have caused many people to clamor for campaign finance reform. After all, they reason, how can a system remain uncorrupt when politicians are indebted to the big money interests that fund their campaigns?
Proponents of campaign finance reform have won many victories in the recent past. However, campaign financing as it now stands remains intolerable to many Americans. Under our current system political speech is repressed, reams of regulations make campaigning daunting, and the ability for little-known candidates to compete has all but disappeared. To others, elections are too expensive, and the issue ad extravaganza in 2004 was a disaster not to be repeated. Congress is currently mulling over bills to resolve these problems. What to do with campaign finance reform will be a major issue as we look toward the 2008 election.
Campaign finance reform has a long history. Congress banned corporate and union political donations in Teddy Roosevelt’s and Harry Truman’s administrations, respectively. In 1971 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which allowed unions and corporations to form political action committees (PACs), or segregated money-funds to which individuals could voluntarily contribute. FECA also imposed disclosure requirements for contributions and spending. Its 1974 revision formed the Federal Election Commission, structured a system of public financing for federal elections, and set specific donation limits. Individuals could donate up to $1000 to a candidate; PACs could contribute a maximum of $5000.
Congress revisited FECA in 1979, but this revision left an unintended loophole. Unions, corporations, and individuals could make unlimited (and undisclosed) donations to political parties. On paper this “soft...
Money and politics have always gone hand in hand. During the 2004 presidential election alone, presidential campaign spending topped $1.2 billion. The vast sums of money inherent to American politics have caused many people to clamor for campaign finance reform. After all, they reason, how can a system remain uncorrupt when politicians are indebted to the big money interests that fund their campaigns?
Proponents of campaign finance reform have won many victories in the recent past. However, campaign financing as it now stands remains intolerable to many Americans. Under our current system political speech is repressed, reams of regulations make campaigning daunting, and the ability for little-known candidates to compete has all but disappeared. To others, elections are too expensive, and the issue ad extravaganza in 2004 was a disaster not to be repeated. Congress is currently mulling over bills to resolve these problems. What to do with campaign finance reform will be a major issue as we look toward the 2008 election.
Campaign finance reform has a long history. Congress banned corporate and union political donations in Teddy Roosevelt’s and Harry Truman’s administrations, respectively. In 1971 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which allowed unions and corporations to form political action committees (PACs), or segregated money-funds to which individuals could voluntarily contribute. FECA also imposed disclosure requirements for contributions and spending. Its 1974 revision formed the Federal Election Commission, structured a system of public financing for federal elections, and set specific donation limits. Individuals could donate up to $1000 to a candidate; PACs could contribute a maximum of $5000.
Congress revisited FECA in 1979, but this revision left an unintended loophole. Unions, corporations, and individuals could make unlimited (and undisclosed) donations to political parties. On paper this “soft...