A lot of money has affected the political life in the United States since the elections were held. In the 1700 s, only white male landowners over 21 years could vote. Thus, to have a say in American politics, you had to have money. In 1828, Andrew Jackson began using tactics of the modern political campaign, such as the use of personal campaign to raise funds and of voice. Although Abraham Lincoln financed over his campaign, he still relied on wealthy donors to support his candidacy. Affluent families like the Astors and Vanderbilts, soon learned that it was important to fund political campaigns to buy access and influence. President Theodore Roosevelt tried to stem the flow of money after being embarrassed by the support of businesses in his own country, and in 1905, he asked Congress to ban all corporate contributions and require public disclosure of contributions and expenditures. In 1907, Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibits interstate companies and banks to make direct contributions to federal candidates. Thus began the modern efforts to regulate and reform the financing of electoral campaigns.
Richard Nixon left the White House after resigning
Finance Reform Act of 1907 campaigns beginning until the end of 1940 was riddled with loopholes and is rarely used or easy to circumvent. It was after the passage of the Law of the Federal Election Campaign (FECA) of 1971 did campaign finance reform becomes a dominant issue. In FECA, Congress demanded greater disclosure of contributions and expenditures of federal political candidates and even placed limits on campaign contributions. Following the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon and illegalities funding his re-election campaign in 1972 the reform of campaign financing was again in the spotlight. Watergate and its aftermath prompted Congress to amend FECA. In 1974, Congress set spending limits for candidates in presidential and legislative elections and national political parties in the party primary, the general election and runoff election. The new set FECA contribution limits on individuals, political action committees and political parties and provided a voluntary public financing of presidential elections. FECA 1974 established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to implement the provisions of the campaign finance law.
In 1976, the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court upheld contribution limits "reasonable" to protect the integrity of the electoral system and as an anti-corruption measure, but it hit the spending limit as an unconstitutional infringement of the freedom of expression of individuals, businesses and other groups. He confirmed the voluntary spending limits, such as those in the presidential public financing system. Later, in 1985, the Court ruled in Federal Committee of the Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action that political action committees (PAC) could spend unlimited amounts on behalf of a candidate provided that the expenses were not made jointly or in collaboration with the candidate. In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000), the Court applied Buckley v. Valeo the limits of state government on campaign contributions made to those who are running for state office.
The Senate adopted the reform of campaign financing
After the 2000 elections, the role of money in American politics was very visible. John McCain and Russ Feingold proposed Reform Act Bipartisan Campaign (BCRA), arguing that the major contributors, who represent a small percentage of Americans could disproportionately impact the election results. Great contributors are not geographically representative of the general population in the United States. Candidates who raise or spend more money earn up to 95% of these elections. Without wealth or personal financing capacity, many average Americans are unable to stand for election.
To fight against this problem, the BCRA was enacted in 2002. One of its main provisions banned national party committees from accepting or spending soft money, usually used for campaign expenses, office supplies and equipment. Soft money ban was particularly unpopular with the domestic elite parties. Similarly, the BCRA limited state and local actors, telling them they could not spend money on federal election campaign, but should instead focus on registration-the-vote campaigns exit and voters. National, state and local actors could also not ask or pay money to non-profit organizations (involved in defence but not to approve the election of any candidate or directly subsidize campaigns federal candidates). Hard money contributions (or the money that goes directly to fund the campaign of a candidate) initiated new limits under the BCRA, including individual contributions to House and Senate campaigns, $2,000 and indexed to grow with inflation, the overall total contribution limits for individuals, $95,000 to $ $37,500 57.500 candidates and to political parties and political action committees, political action committees, $5,000 per candidate per election with an extra $15,000 to a national party committee and $5,000 combined committees of state and local party. Broadcast, cable or satellite communications that target federal candidates for office and show their resemblance in their district or state media (known under the name electioneering communications) have been banned from being issued or shown within 60 days a general election or 30 days of a primary. In addition, he was forbidden unions and corporations to contribute directly to the campaign and communications could not pay for such advertising through hard money gold Cap. Nonprofits and even 527 could pay for these types of ads per cap. The BCRA also included "the provision of millionaires" has allowed candidates facing wealthy opponents apart to accept up to $6,000 per election from individual contributors.
Hillary Clinton speaks at the event of Emily's List
After BCRA was enacted, it was immediately challenged in the courts and certain provisions were unconstitutional. Groups mainly affected corporations, unions and special interest groups often resist any form of campaign finance reform. Litigation precludes the application of laws such as the BCRA and gives these groups the opportunity to find and create loopholes. Most opponents of campaign finance reform harken back to Buckley v. Valeo, arguing that attempts to limit contributions or expenditures in political campaigns violate the First Amendment rights. Others claim that the reform of campaign financing, regardless of the fact that well intentioned, produces adverse consequences. For example, rising PACs undermined political parties. Candidates raised funds outside party channels and conducted independent political party campaigns. Some have called for reform of the campaign finance law that "incumbent protection" as the contributors disclosure "out" and can cause not help challengers for fear of angering the outgoing holder. They argue that most of the efforts to limit the role of money in politics were unsuccessful and may even discourage ordinary citizens stand for election. The legal and accounting expertise to conduct a campaign requires a lot of money and consumes a significant portion of the overall budget of the campaign. Ordinary citizens could be overwhelmed and discouraged by the judiciary, disclosure requirements and rules of complex financing.
Reform campaign financing was facing major challenges of the court and its main provisions are under serious threat. In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007), the Court held that part of the BCRA was unconstitutional applied by the FEC to an announcement that the Wisconsin Right to life groups sought to air before the 2004 election, and further stated that the ads that are engaged in a discussion of the issues could not be interpreted as urging the support or defeat of a particular candidate. Thereafter, the BCRA has drawn the ire of Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, who sought to broadcast a documentary that the group produced in 2008 entitled Hillary: The Movie. The FEC applied the provisions of BCRA prohibit electioneering non-profit organizations, businesses and unions to advocate specifically for the election or defeat of a federal candidate. In response, Citizens United took the FEC to court. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court invalidated a BCRA provision that prevented corporations and unions to spend cash is generally advocate for or against the election of a federal candidate. Proponents of electoral provisions support this decision will allow companies to for money into campaigns, undermining the democratic process, while opponents continue to argue that some groups are able to share resources, including unions and groups of health care reform should be able to exercise their rights to freedom of expression.
Further Reading
Cooper, Mary H. "Campaign Finance Reform." CQ Researcher. March 31, 2000: 257-280; Corrado, Anthony, Thomas E. Mann, Daniel Ortiz, and Trevor Potter, eds. The new campaign finance sourcebook. Washington, d. C: Brookings Institution Press, 2005, "High Court hears' Hillary: The Movie!" If campaign funds. "CNN, http://www.cnn.com 2009;. Johnston, Michael"The Law on the protection of holders of Politics 2002 under the new campaign finance law.? "Http://www.sss.iae.edu; Jost, Kenneth. "Showdown finance the campaign." CQ Researcher (22 November 2002): 969-992; Utter, Glenn H. and Ruth Ann Strickland... Campaign and election reform. 2nd edition. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2008, Wallison, J. Peter and Joel M. Gora. Better Parties, Better Government: A Realistic Program for Campaign Finance Reform. Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 2009.
0 comments:
Post a Comment