In the evolution of campaign finance, cases have come up the chain of courts and found themselves in the lap of the Supreme Court of the United States. Speechnow.org was no exception to this lengthy journey. Speechnow.org, a nonprofit organization that supported candidates who stood firm with the First Amendment, was told to operate as a political committee. Under this classification, individuals were subject to obey collecting and spending limitations. These restrictions made it very hard for independent groups to be effective, so in 2008 David Keating, president of Speechnow.org went to court against the FEC. After the 2010 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Speechnow.org’s was to have free reign on donations, but would still need to register as a political committee. Keating was not happen with the appellate court’s decision. He knew that his case was Supreme Court worthy due to Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v FEC being precedent. With those cases setting an example for Speechnow.org, Keating decided to try and take this case to the Supreme Court. This case opened discussion on if it is constitutional to limit contributions to organizations that were spending their money on political independent expenditures. Speechnow.org also wished to address donor disclosure guidelines and FEC reporting requirements. Speechnow.org’s most leading argument was in the fact that they did not give donations to political candidates or political parties, a major component that is thought of be traditional standards to be labeled as a political committee. This argument was flawed, however, because the FEC defines a political committee as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons that receives contributions of more tha... ... middle of paper ... ...There was no clear corruption in the past election season. It would make the most sense to wait until there is statistical evidence before worrying about the effects of these rulings. If there are issues some options for reform can be done by: making a constitutional amendment that applies to campaign finance, have the states enforce their own laws, or better enforce the laws we have now. Speechnow.org v. FEC brings out a few significant keys. First, the freedom of speech and the right to privacy are the regarded as high standing rulings in America. Those things have the ability to be corrupted, but, ultimately, the court’s will leave it is up to the citizens of the United States to make those decisions for themselves. Also, another significant factor is campaign finance is an ever-changing topic that has loopholes that need to be addressed on a case-to-case basis.
December of 2010, in a five to four vote, it was decided that corporate funding of independants in in elections was protected under the first Amendment. This opened the floodgate for the 2012 elections as the candidates took to many platforms to raise money for their campaigns. Mitt Romney along with the help of Spencer Zwick raised 6.5 million dollars simply through a call-a-thon. The secret weapon in this call-a-thon was a program called ComMITT. This program allowed the user to solicit donations from contacts in their email, and online social networking sites. Any donation made fed directly back into the campaign, giving a real-time tally of pledges. With all of this information, one can make a decision for or against campaign finance contributions. Personally, I have conflicting feelings about limitations on campaign finance. I feel as though there should not be a limit for campaign finance contributions, but there should be more qualifications for becoming president. I do not believe there should be a limit on campaign finance because technically it is covered under freedom of speech. It is covered under freedom of speech. This is because giving money is showing
Introduction In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in.elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape. Campaign Finance in the United States During the Gilded Age—a period that began in the 1870s wherein the United States experienced tremendous economic growth—affluent industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew W. Mellon, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie exercised, owing in large part to their wealth, enormous influence over the direction of American politics. Though left unaddressed during the Gilded Age, the issue of corporate involvement in political affairs was eventually identified as a corrosive problem in President Theodore Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address.
In the end, the court upheld the law's contribution limits, presidential public financing program, and disclosure provisions. But they removed limits on spending, including independent expenditures, which is money spent by individuals or outside groups independent of campaigns. This shaped most major campaign financing rulings, including Citizen’s United. NCPAC generated enormous fundraising for campaigns, including spending $1.2 million in the 1980 election that attacked six Democrats in the Senate.
In 1907 it was considered illegal for any corporation to spend money in connection with a federal election. In 1947 it was illegal for labor unions to spend any money in connection with any federal election. And since 1974, it has been illegal for an individual to contribute more than $1,000 to a federal candidate, or more than $20,000 per year to a political party (Campaign Finance). Congress defined this as a way to prevent the influence of a candidate or federal election. The so-called “soft money” which is used to fund candidates’ elections is defined as money which violates the Federal Election Commission’s laws on federal elections. In laments terms a simple loophole was created by the FEC in 1978 through a ruling which allowed corporations to donate large amounts of money to candidates for “Party Building” purposes (Campaign Finance). In reality, the $50,000 to one million dollar donations gives the candidate the power to put on the most extravagant campaign money will buy. This loophole remained almost completely dormant in federal elections until the Dukakis campaign in 1988, then fully emerging in the later Bush campaign, which utilized millions of dollars of soft money(Soft Money). This aggressive soft money campaigning involved the solicitation of corporate and union treasury funds, as well as unlimited contributions from individuals, all of which were classified for “Party Building” purposes. The way the money flows is basically from the corporation or union to the political party which the donator favors. The spending of soft money is usually controlled by the political parties; however it is done in great coordination with the candidate. Aside from unions and corporations special interest groups have been large supporters of soft money. These groups band together for a candidates such as groups for, textiles, tobacco, and liquor. The textile giant Fruit of the Loom, successfully lobbied a campaign which stopped an extension of NAFTA benefits to Caribbean and Central American nations.
This may be true; however, I seem, too often, to see another side of this organization. In recent months and years, their agendas have been advanced only through the media and political outcries, not through the democratic process as they have stated. Maybe they employ the lesser known, but effective, democrat process.
The past few years, I’ve taken an interest into our constitution. As a result of this interest, I would at times sift through interesting Supreme Court cases. Tinker v. Des Moines and Johnson v. Texas would, to some, conflict with cases like Schenck v. United States. The line drawn on the issue of free speech to others may be blurry, but to me, it has always been crystal clear. So when Super PACs, Political Action Committees that can donate unlimited funds to an independent cause, arose, I concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision to protect free speech. To most it seems, Super PACs are just evil PACs, and they, unlike regular PACs, ruin elections. They really only differ by their method, however, when discussing the movement of money. Super PACs are run “independently”, and PACs are usually partisan.
Campaign finance refers to all funds raised to help increase candidates, political parties, or policy attempts and public votes. When it comes to political parties, generous organizations, and political action groups in the United States are used to collect money toward keep campaigns alive. Campaign finance always has problems when it comes to these involvements. These involvements include donating to candidate, parties and other political organization. Matthew J. Streb stated “instead of placing further restrictions on campaign donations to candidates, parties, and other political organizations, we should consider eliminating contribution restrictions entirely (Rethinking American Electoral Democracy)”. In other words, instead of allowing
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
The issue of campaign financing has been discussed for a long time. Running for office especially a higher office is not a cheap event. Candidates must spend much for hiring staff, renting office space, buying ads etc. Where does the money come from? It cannot officially come from corporations or national banks because that has been forbidden since 1907 by Congress. So if the candidate is not extremely rich himself the funding must come from donations from individuals, party committees, and PACs. PACs are political action committees, which raise funds from different sources and can be set up by corporations, labor unions or other organizations. In 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) requires full disclosure of any federal campaign contributions and expenditures and limits contributions to all federal candidates and political committees influencing federal elections. In 1976 the case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the contribution limits as a measure against bribery. But the Court did not rule against limits on independent expenditures, support which is not coordinated with the candidate. In the newest development, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling from April 2014 the supreme court struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined. Striking down the restrictions on campaign funding creates a shift in influence and power in politics and therefore endangers democracy. Unlimited campaign funding increases the influence of few rich people on election and politics. On the other side it diminishes the influence of the majority, ordinary (poor) people, the people.
Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
The subject of campaign finance reform sounds so dull, but it is necessary to understand that reform helps to keep the society flowing smoothly. Therefore, what is the current status of campaign finance reform? In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed by Congress. It was also known as the McCain-Feingold Act (Sidlow, 2013, p.213). It banned soft money at federal levels and regulated campaign ads from interest groups because the enormous amount of money spent by interest groups for their ads had the appearance of corruption (South University Online, 2013). There is so much money floating around right now that I fear the common man may soon have little say in what happens in this country. Now the super PACs and 501c's are spreading their influences too. Can reform be a realistic expectation of the American political process?
The advocacy explosion is strongly linked to the decline of the American political party and the role of the political parties in elections. As interest groups have gained more power and had a larger control over politics and political goods the power that is exerted by political parties has dwindled. The power of the interest group has grown larger with the amount of members and the financial rewards that have come with the new members. In elections interest groups do not usually participate directly with the candidate or the election. Berry points out that “Groups often try to leverage their endorsement to obtain support for one of their priorities” (Berry, 53). With interest groups spreading their resources around the actual election can be affected very minimally by the many interest groups that contribute money to the election. However, the candidates who obtain political office through the help of special interest money still owe some sort of loyalty to the interest group regardless of which party wins the election. This loyalty and the promise of more money in the future gives the elected of...
According to the website that is provided to sourcewatch.org, I found their mission statement “The James Madison Center for Free Speech is an internal educational fund of the James Madison Center, Inc., a District of Columbia non-profit corporation”. They are a non-profit corporation which means they don’t earn any profit so they can only get their money mostly from people’s donation and organization/ foundation funding. Their board of directors Betsy DeVos GOP heavyweight and wife of Amway co-founder Richard DeVos, and their personal and family foundation ties to the far-right Libertarian and conservative Christian think tanks, astro turf grassroots groups and Super PACs. Also, they are the members of the Dead Billionaires Club, people who
In a country where democracy is at the heart of all citizens, these citizens need to have a stronger voice when it comes to elections. This is why the implementation of an amendment that reforms the financing of campaigns is disputed greatly among scholars and political officials alike. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are entitled to first amendment rights, but the basis of this ruling is unclear. Unfortunately the overturning of such a ruling would not even guarantee a restored democracy to American elections. Some professionals see corporations and hefty donating figures as an essential part of the election process, while others believe the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee has taking many of the rights that the founding fathers had fought for. In the following body paragraphs, five sources will be reviewed in hopes of comparing the benefits and pitfalls of revising the way American Elections are financed.
The Buckley v. Valeo court case of 1976 concluded that, “ money is a form of speech.” Several years later, the 2009 - 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission concludes that, “The right of free speech as corporations can not be curtailed.”Chomsky says that, “ the cost of elections skyrockets, which then forces the political parties into the pockets of corporations.” Chomsky deduces that if money is a form of speech and the right of free speech of corporations can not be infringed upon, the elections are now bought by corporations without restraint, allowing the wealthy to be in control of the elections. When thought about, the president is elected by the funding of those who are wealthy, who in turn elects supreme court justices to judge the utmost important cases in the United States. This supports his overall argument that the concentration of wealth increases the concentration of power and vice