Evaluate the extent to which attempts to reform campaign finance have failed.

Question 1

Introduction - Themes

Answer 1

• Limits
• Transparency
• Equality

Question 2

Introduction - Argument

Answer 2

The reforms on campaign finance since the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 have massively failed - no intial aims have been achieved

Question 3

Succeeded - Limits - Point

Answer 3

There were two Congressional acts which helped to stop the excessive spending of money and donation during election periods

Question 4

Succeeded - Limits - Examples

Answer 4

• The Federal Campaign Act of 1974 limited the hard money that individuals, unions and corporations could give
• The Bipartisan Campaign Act meant that a number of restrictions were introduced but also included individual limits on contributions. In the 2023/2024 cycle this stands at only $3,300 from an individual to candidate committee

Question 5

Failed - Limits - Point

Answer 5

A number of the limits implemented in the Congressional legislation have been overturned by the Supreme Court

Question 6

Failed - Limits - Examples

Answer 6

• In the 2014 case of McCutcheon v FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that the limits in place in the FECA was only to one candidate, this meant that they could donate the capped amount to as many candidates as they wished
• The 2016 case of Citizens United v The FEC overturned the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Act which stopped broadcasts which mentioned a presidential candidate within 60 days of a general election

Question 7

Succeeded - Transparency - Point

Answer 7

One of the reforms to campaign finance aimed to increase transparency to better understand the influences on American politics

Question 8

Succeeded - Transparency - Examples

Answer 8

• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act included the ‘Stand by Your Ad’ provision which resulted in all campaign advertisements having to include verbal endorsements by the candidate
• The introduction of PACs and Super PACs has made ideological distinctions far clearer. Groups such as Future Forward and the Lincoln Project were pro-Biden, white Senate Leadership Fund PAC and the Committee to Defend the Presidency were pro-Trump

Question 9

Failed - Transparency - Point

Answer 9

There has not really been an increase in transparency if anything the situation has deteriorated further

Question 10

Failed - Transparency - Examples

Answer 10

• There has been significant growth in ‘dark money.’ The pro-Republican Senate Leadership Fund PAC recieved $63m from its allied dark money group One Nation. Only 30% of expenditure came from groups that disclosed their donors
• Attack ads have been increasingly dramatically in popilarity with most PACs spending more on them than their candidates. Future Foward USA spent $47m on Democrat candidates and $67m on attacking Republican candidates

Question 11

Succeeded - Equality - Point

Answer 11

Campaign finance reforms have also aimed to reduce inequality between parties - in some respects they have been successful

Question 12

Succeeded - Equality - Examples

Answer 12

• Until 2008 matching funds were used, these largely funded presidential campaigns and meant that presidents were able to obtain a relatively equal level of funds
• Having more money does not necessarily guarantee a win, in 2016 Trump had raised about $340m compared to Clinton who had raised about $581m

Question 13

Failed - Equality - Point

Answer 13

Matching funds ended with Obama and since there has been a drastic increase in inequality of finances across the USA

Question 14

Failed - Equality - Examples

Answer 14

• The main donors are still the ultra-wealthy - ‘The Conversation’ calculated that by the summer of 2020 just 2,635 people had provided $1.4bn of campaign finance
• There is not equal spending across the US, in close congressional races the majority of donations come from outside the state. In the North Carolina Senate race around $128m was from outside