ETVT reforms to campaign finance have gone far enough (30) Flashcards
Skewing election results in congress and presidency - It has gone far enough
In the 2020 South Carolina Senate race, republican incumbent Lindsey graham was outspent by democrat challenger Harrison by around $40 million however was still safely re-elected, this therefore points to how effective the candidate it at representing views of the people and the importance of incumbency.
Arguably as well the ability for congressional members to raise large sums of money indicates they are a strong candidate and they are likely to be elected, this means that there are other factors that contribute to congressional elections and not just campaign finance.
Trumps election reminds us that the biggest spender does not always win the election, California billionaire Tom Steyer directed more than $60 million of his hedge-fund, and was the largest super PAC donor in support of the democrats, however his efforts were unsuccessful.
Over the course of the primary and general elections the Trump campaign raised about $340 million dollars whereas the Clinton campaign raised $581.
Furthermore in the 2017 election 64% of the Republican contributions were $200 dollars or less, in this case the election is not being influenced by rich business men and individuals but a wide number of people.
By allowing candidates to raise funds for their campaigns, individuals and organizations can support candidates they believe in, giving them a better chance to convey their messages to the public. Campaign finance also enables political participation, as it allows citizens to financially support candidates who share their values and policy preferences.
McCain-Feingold act 2002 mean that National Party committees could no longer raise or spend ‘soft money, this is money donated to political parties instead of candidates, to avoid the campaign finance limitations set by the Federal election campaign act 1974, this has arguably meant that individuals are no longer able to directly fund congressional and presidential candidates.
The Mcain-Feigngold act 2002 placed limits on advertisements funded by corporations and labour unions within 60 days of a election and 30 days before a primary, and set individual limits on donations to candidates at $2,300.
Limits remain on PAC at $5,000 per year.
Skewing election results in congress and the presdiency - It hasnt
Campaign finance in presidential elections is growing every year, Super PACs are hugely influential in fundraising and campaigning for presidents, for example in the 2020 election Future Forward USA spent over $111 million supporting Joe Biden, furthermore the Lincoln project raised just over $67 million on ads to win over moderate republicans that would have voted for trump.
Bidens campaign raised a total of $1.6bn and Trumps campaign raised around $1.1bn, only 22% were from small donors of $200 or less, meaning that large corporations and individuals are able to dictate and decide the outcome of elections in the US, and the voting electorates role has been greatly reduced.
In 2020 Republican incumbent Martha McSally was outspent by $30 million by democrat challenge Mark Kelly and lost as a result.
Campaign finance is becoming increasingly important in US elections, for example the House candidates raised more money by August 27th in the 2018 midterms then the entire 2014 midterm election cycle.
Money in congressional elections is hugely important, it can be spent on consultants, buying television time, print and digital media advertisement, as well has hiring halls for campaign rallies.
Dark money, where the source is unknown, in the same time frame rose by 26%. Furthermore the $16 billion spent in the 2022 midterms is a record.
Hard money from donors can arguably have too much influence on election outcomes, allowing for individual donors to dictate who wins office in congressional elections.
Furthermore, it is likely that campaign spending contributes to election victory, in the 2022 midterm elections 96% of races in the house were won by the top spending candidates, furthermore 90% in the senate were won by the top spending candidate.
The Mcain-Feigngold act 2002 placed limits on advertisements funded by corporations and labour unions within 60 days of a election and 30 days before a primary, and set individual limits on donations to candidates at $2,300.
BUT in Citizens United v FEC 2010 the court ruled that the act violated the 1st amendments protection of freedom of speech, meaning that non-profit organisations such as Citizens United were able to fund advertisements for and against presidential candidates, therefore PACs and now corporations had the right to unlimited expenditure. This has allowed total campaign expenditure to rise.
Undue influence over policy - It has
American democracy is built on free speech and participation, everyone should have a say in politics if they want. Imposing restrictions on such expenditure could be ruled as in violation of the constitution and in violation of the 1st amendment right of the people to engage in free speech.
Citizens United v FEC 2010 was a landmark decision by the Supreme court that ruled the freedom of speech clause of the 1st amendment means that the government cannot restrict the independent expenditures for political campaigns and corporations.
The NRA for example has nearly 5 million members, and therefore representative of a wide number of views and aims in the US population, therefore through excessive spending the NRA allows for such views to be met.
Caps on donations to individual candidates under the McCain-Feingold 2002 set limits on the maximum amount that can be donated to individual candidates overall over a election cycle, in 2011-12 this was set at $117,000.
Undue influence over policy - It hasnt
Wealthy individuals and interest groups have too much influence in the US, they make large campaign contributions allowing them to exert influence over policy making, this undermines the principles of equal representation and can lead to policies that favour the wealthy few.
The Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity are a Super PAC and a conservative political advocacy group that has built significant impact on US politics, it uses its substantial wealth to fund advocacy ads and political advertising.
AFP spent $125 million in the 2014 midterms and successfully achieved a republican majority in the senate, this allowed them to create a political force against the Affordable care act, the expansion of Medicaid and helped cultivate the tea party movement into a political force against Obama.
Tyranny of the minority
The NRA in 2022 spent 2.20 million for republican senators and about 248 Republican House representatives and senators have received over $70 million in direct and indirect support from the NRA over the span of their careers, this so the NRA can influence their input on policy and is now a major political force.
Mark Rubio for example has recieved over £3 million over his career from the NRA and voted against the Toggle the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act 2021 - expanding background checks.
The caps on how many members you could donate to ended in 2014, McCutcheon v FEC found that individuals should be free to donate the capped amount to as many candidates as they like, so the NRA for example could directly donate $2,800 to any candidate they believed could enhance their platform and policy.
