Download
1 / 8
80 likes | 197 Vues
Campaign Finance. I. Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-1974. Established a Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to regulate federal elections. All candidates must disclose contributions and expenditures.
E N D
I. Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-1974 • Established a Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to regulate federal elections. • All candidates must disclose contributions and expenditures. • Presidential candidates can receive fed. subsidies on a matching fund basis (money comes from tax check-offs). In ’04. Kerry and Bush each received $74 million. Obama chose not to take federal funds in ‘08, and was therefore able to spend unlimited amounts. McCain accepted the federal funds.
I. Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-1974 D. Presidential candidates who receive fed. money are subjected to spending limitations. If they do not take the money, they have no spending limit. E. Contribution limitations: 1. Individuals: $1,000 per candidate, per election 2. PACs: $5,000 per candidate, per election F. Effect of Buckley v. Valeo (1976) on FECA: 1. Court upheld limits on campaign contributions. 2. Court struck down limits on congressional campaign spending. 1st Amendment protects spending as a form of expression. Limits are still OK for presidential races because the fed. govt. subsidizes them.
II. Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Bill) • Bans soft money donations to national political parties. Soft money: undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for party building activities. • Limits soft money donations to state political parties to $10,000 restricts use of these donations to voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. • Doubled individuals’ “hard money” donations to $2,000 and future increases to inflation (now $2,400 for 2010 election). Hard money: disclosed, limited donations to candidates. • No change on PAC limits. Still $5,000. • Unions and corporations banned from giving soft money to parties.
III. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 • Citizens United, a conservative organization, tried to run television ads promoting its film Hillary: The Movie, a documentary critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and show the movie itself on television less than 30 days before a primary election. • BCRA, however, banned corporations and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications” within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. A District Court therefore ruled the film violated BCRA.
III. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 C. The Supreme Court, however: 1. Eliminates the restriction that banned such ads within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. 2. Struck down laws that banned corporations from spending money from their treasuries on federal elections. Will probably apply to unions, as well. 3. Allowed corporations (and probably unions) to air ads explicitly supporting or opposing a federal candidate. Previously, issue advocacy ads were banned from doing this. 4. Kept in place rules that ban corporations and unions from donating directly to candidates.
IV. Analysis • No subsidies for congressional campaigns further incumbency advantage. • No limits on spending in congressional races (these were overturned in Buckley v. Valeo, 1976). 1. Massive spending on congressional races and further incumbency advantage. 2. Members of Congress spend great amounts of time with fund-raising projects.
IV. Analysis C. Minor presidential candidates cannot receive subsidies before the election unless their party earned at least 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. D. Parties are weakened since presidential election funds go to the candidates themselves rather than the parties rise of candidate-centered campaigns rather than party-centered campaigns. E. Growth of PACs and candidate dependence on PACs. F. Cost of campaigning has risen more time spent on fundraising by candidates.
