Campaign Finance Reform
Over the years, campaign finance reform has been widely debated in the United States. So much funding goes into campaigning, and the issue of how much is enough to support the process is always a question. The main issue revolves around the amount of money a candidate should receive from donations. Undoubtedly, the more one donates to a candidate, the more influence they have on the candidate, which does give way to potential corruption. In 2010, there was the case of citizens united versus the Federal election commission. The Supreme Court upheld that the government could not restrict how much individuals and corporations can donate to campaigns as it would violate the First Amendment. As of 2022, the same ruling stands in campaign finance reforms; as much as some states have tried to pass their laws, the federal government has not made next to no attempt to change the 2010 ruling.
Even then, some states, like South Dakota, have come up with campaign finance laws that allow them to have some control over the campaign donations to candidates. In the case of South Dakota, organizations making independent donations have to disclose their donations if they exceed the mark of one hundred dollars, increasing transparency. It also helps that they are more responsive to the wants of the citizens. While they do not offer a limitation for donations, their strategy works to improve general transparency in the long run. Another example is the San Francisco city commission, which limited contributions to around $3000 for each calendar year per candidate (RaShawn, 2018). The above are just examples of the current state of campaign finance reforms put in place. On a state level, some states have worked on reforms that are working for them, but the federal government remains reluctant to apply any reform that does not comply with the 2010 citizens united ruling. The rulings led to the formation of super PACs, which can spend as much as they want during the campaign trail as long as it is in soft money.
How Realistic Is The Reform In The US Political Process?
Notably, one of the leading reasons for campaign finance reforms is preventing corruption. Unlimited financial support by institutions and private organizations gives them more power over the candidates during their stay in the government. While it may seem like a donation towards the campaign for a candidate, it carries many strings attached. The people or organizations that make the large donations have agendas and can push them once their candidate wins. It precedes the interests of small individual groups and forsakes the interest of the larger groups that are the citizens within a state or the country. Therefore, there is the fear that once the candidate gets the seat, they will serve those who made unlimited donations hence the propensity of corruption. Therefore, coming up with reforms on campaign financing can go a long way in increasing transparency for the candidates while in office and reducing corruption.
Additionally, with reforms, there is a reduction of anonymous donations, which increases the chances of understanding where the money is coming from. The candidates who lack the same wealthy backing in donations also gain a chance to compete equally when there are limitations in the campaign finances. Generally, reforms within the campaign financing offer a chance to regulate the funding and create a sense of equality for all the candidates vying for seats. In a country striving to create equality, reforms are realistic within the American political process.
Role of Soft Money
Observably, campaign finance is a necessity when it comes to election periods. The money is used in the campaigning, which involves different strategies and paying for staff within the campaign team. It is divided into two categories: hard money and soft money. Hard money is the cash given to the political parties and candidates directly. In contrast, soft money is money acquired outside federal election laws, although not directly. It is used in areas like voter registration and activities in party building, among others. Generally, soft money has no limit, and the only requirement is that it is not used in candidate campaigning and promotion toward a seat (Gilens, Patterson, & Haines,2021). For instance, an individual can agree with a policy made by a political party and hence donate to help enact the policy and support other ideas similar to the policy. While soft money is meant for political parties, some wealthy individuals give money to have more control over the policies enacted. It is an indirect way for them to control politics without necessarily raising corruption issues with the federal government.
In 2018, the then federal budget director Mick Mulvaney in an interview, spoke of how he gives precedence to lobbyists whereby; he admitted that he those who had given money during the campaign period then he would listen to them but would not listen to those who did not give any money (Briffault,2020). Therefore, while soft money is not used directly by candidates, its donators have quite the influence in policy making and their enactment. They exert influence over elections and the decisions made afterward. There is also the impact they have on negative campaigning. With the unlimited financial support in soft money, there is a lot of negative campaigning against other candidates during the election period as the funding allows to pay for such forms of communications.
Overview of Limitation In Campaigning Finances
Every election period comes with huge costs, especially for the campaign trail, and each candidate has to find ways in which they will support their journey during the campaign. Therefore most of them appeal to donations to cover as much ground as possible while paying for their campaign staff and other aspects like advertisements. The campaign period is also a time in which the citizens and organizations get to choose whom they want to elect, hence should be free to support whom they want.
On the one hand, unlimited support by the super PACS gives them a certain air of power over the candidates and political parties. The more donation made, the higher the influence they yield. The amount of power overshadows the citizens’ voices giving more power to different interest small groups. There is a higher chance of corruption in decision-making after the elections (Gilens Patterson & Haines, 2021). Therefore, limiting them reduces the individual powers of the small interest groups. It also helps increase accountability and transparency during and after the election period.
Even then, there is a reason why donations should not be limited. The First Amendment calls for free speech; therefore, limiting donations would violate the Amendment. The super PACS can give as much as they want to their preferred candidates and political parties. Also, their influence on the policies offers more points of view different from those of the politicians; therefore, it offers a chance for the people on the ground to offer their views on different policies, increasing inclusivity. According to the Federal Election Commission, 2020, in 2012, super PACS spent around $600 million on independent ads on the presidential campaigns. This provided coverage for negative and positive ads against Barack Obama and Romney. Therefore, they allow communication coverage without financial limitations.
In conclusion, both arguments have merits and demerits, yet the issue remains unresolved. Therefore, the balance between upholding the First Amendment and democratic principles must be upheld while reducing the impact of money in general politics.
References
Briffault, R. (2020). Election 2020 sees a record $11 billion in campaign spending, mainly from a handful of super-rich donors.
Federal Election Commission. (2020). Statistical summary of 24-month campaign activity of the 2011–2012 election cycle. FEC. Gov, 23 March 2017.
Gilens, M., Patterson, S., & Haines, P. (2021). Campaign finance regulations and public policy. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 1074-1081.
RaShawn Hall. (2018). Campaign Finance Reform is Necessary to Secure our Democracy – States Are Not Waiting
write