Evaluate the view that further campaign in finance reform is urgently needed in the USA

Question 1

LoA

Answer 1

Debate has emerged due to the fight between equality and freedom of expression.
LOA - further finance reform is needed, but how possible is it?

Question 2

para 1 theme

Answer 2

overall costs

Question 3

para 2 theme

Answer 3

reduce influence of wealthy donors

Question 4

para 3 theme

Answer 4

regulation of election spending

Question 5

para 1 overall costs

Answer 5

• FECA and BCRA have failed to control overall spending. They tried to limit the spending cap and also banned soft money in an attempt to limit overall spending, but endless loopholes within the legislation has meant this is bypass able. The BCRA was passed in 2002, but vote spending has increased greatly since then. In 2008, spending was $8 per vote, which became $20 per vote in 2012. In the 2020 presidential election, there was a massive $6.5 billion spent.
  
  • The FEC is continually gridlocked and fails to work in a bipartisan manner, meaning it struggles to enforce the spending rules
    The fact that the citizen united ruling passed in a 5-4 ruling shows how contentious the decision was, suggesting that finance reform may be desirable for many

Question 6

para 1 however

Answer 6

• Spending enhances democracy by increasing participation. It involves external individuals and groups into the political process, which helps to enhance participation.
  
  • Furthermore, America is a society based on freedoms, and the freedom of expression supports the fact that individuals are free to spend as much as they wish at elections; this was the view of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v FEC
    Furthermore, legislation has bene introduced where spending must be declared, meaning it is open and pubic when helps to ensure there is no mal practice involved in the process

Question 7

para 1 rebuttal

Answer 7

• Participation is made by a very select few, meaning it does little to enhance overall participation.
  
  • American society is also based on equality, and the current state of campaign finance is certainly not equal, benefitting the top 1%.
    HOWEVER LOA - Therefore Campaign finance reform in theory should be necessary. However, the fact is that it is unlikely to be achievable, as the politicians who are the ones who could achieve it are also the ones who are benefitting from it

Question 8

para 2 reduce influence of wealthy donors

Answer 8

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that spending money is a 1st amendment freedom; in the 2010 citizens united ruling the SC overturned the BCRA’s ban on “issue ads” in the run-up to election, opening the way for the emergence of so-called Super PACs. These independent groups were able to spend unlimited money during the 2012, 2016 & 2020 campaigns and many were backed by extremely wealthy individuals - for example Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has donated millions of dollars to pro-Republican Super PACs

Question 9

para 2 however

Answer 9

• As the supreme court argues, it is an individuals constitutional right to spend money in a campaign and this is true. In a country that prides itself on freedoms and rights, it therefore is accepted that rich individuals will be able to spend as much money as they want on campaigns.
  Groups like EMILY’s list, The service employees international unions, trump make America great again and America first all donated in their tens of millions in 2020, showing the wide representation of spending in the election

Question 10

para 2 rebuttal

Answer 10

The fact is that is is totally unfair. In the 10 years following the citizens united ruling, there has been more than $3 billion have been contributed to super PACs, with a quarter of that coming from three individuals (Sheldon Adelson, tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg)

Question 11

para 3 regulation of election spending

Answer 11

• The FEC is too weak and it has proved relatively easy for lawyers to find loopholes in the regulations, so overall in this respect the reforms must be judged largely unsuccessful.
  The Supreme court has continually voted against the FEC. Firstly in Citizens United v FEC 2010 allowed for the creation of Super PACs. Furthermore, in McCutcheon v FEC 2014, the SC stuck down the cap on overall donations

Question 12

para 3 however

Answer 12

• The SC has maintained some restrictions. They let the restriction on how much a donor could give to an individual candidate ($2,800) stand.
  Even then, the unregulated nature of election spending can simply be reflected as allowing for an individuals right to freedoms.

Question 13

para 3 rebuttal

Answer 13

The fact is that it is allowing for a select few people to be able to spend vast quantities of money. This leads to candidates tailoring to the needs of rich individuals who are the ones who can support them.