Campaign Finance Reform

William Gorman
Green Group
3/20/16

Campaign Finance Reform

Considering that unlimited donations to Super Political Action Committees (PACs)

decreases the say of poor people, adds to corruption in the government, and gives inequitable
power to corporations, Congress needs to pass a bill restricting the amount individuals, unions,
and corporations can give to Super PACs. Unregulated campaign financing allows private
money to influence a representative unfairly which rules the U.S. out as a true representative
democracy. As of now there is no limit on how much money can be contributed to a Super PAC
making influence in the democratic system of the U.S. skewed towards the rich leaving the poor
without a voice.

Unregulated campaign financing is the process of giving unlimited amounts of money to

a Super PAC which is legal as of now. A Super PAC is an organization that can receive an
unlimited amount of money from individuals, corporations, and unions. Once the Super PAC
receives the money, it cannot coordinate directly with the campaign staff. However, they can
fund ads, radio shows, or help to ridicule the opposing candidate.

There have been many cases debating the touchy issue of campaign finance reform but
one case set the precedent for the cases that have followed such as, Buckley vs Valeo in 1984.
This case occurred right after many restrictive laws had been passed following the Nixon
Watergate scandal. These laws limited spending in almost all federal elections. In this case
Senator James L. Buckley filed a lawsuit against Francis Valeo of the Federal Elections
Commission (FEC). Buckley argued that laws limiting campaign donations and spending defied
the first and fifth amendments. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where they
ruled that although campaign contributions could be limited, laws limiting candidates spending
violated the first amendment, as the court decided money is an expression of speech. The
court backed up their decision by adding that the amount of speech is not dependent on amount
of money.

This significant decision served as a precedent in the more recent Supreme Court case
Citizens United vs FEC. In this case the Citizens United conservative non-profit argued that an
ad for the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 was critical of George Bush and therefore the commercial was
a campaigning ad within thirty days of the general election. This was therefore illegal according
to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 that stated no electioneering
committee could fund an ad 30 days before an election. Citizens United believed Fahrenheit
9/11 was critical of Bushs response to 9/11 and therefore was an ad for the opposing candidate
Al Gore. The Supreme Court decided that if a company wants to use their money to campaign,
since money is an expression of speech, there cannot be any law limiting when you can express
your views politically. The court determined that the BCRA act was unconstitutional as it
prohibited free speech. Although both cases were ultimately hurtful to unregulated campaign
finance they did contain limits on individual, union and corporate donations directly to
candidates.

Unregulated Campaign Financing is the biggest issue in the US political system as a

government only working for the rich affects every aspect of every citizen's life. Senator Bernie
Sanders said in regard to campaign finance "A few wealthy individuals and corporations have
bought up our private sector and now they're buying up the government. Campaign finance
reform is the most important issue facing us today, because it impacts all the others." Unlimited
donations to Super PACs affects anyone who is not among the uppermost donators to a Super
PAC. Candidates feel obliged to help their largest supporters as the supporters provide the
stream of cash getting a representative in office and keeping them there. Those who dont
donate the most are not the most important to the candidate. This goes against representative
democracy in general as a representative democracy is defined as a government controlled by
the people, the majority of the people not just the wealthiest. In the 2012 race for president the

313 million dollars raised by small donors came from 4 million people all over the country. The
top 32 donors to Super PACs matched this amount, all donating approximately $10 million
(Ways Citizens United Hurts Democracy, 6). Money is essential to winning an election. In the
past 3 elections the winner of the presidential race has raised the most money and so far the
frontrunner for the 2016 election ,Hillary Clinton has both raised and spent the most money
among her competition (Open Secrets, 6). Not only does it decrease input for the poorer people
but it is major contributor to corruption. In the Citizens United case the court ruled that Super
PACs were not required to disclose their donors. This type of money is dubbed as dark money.
Dark Money is money that has no actual disclosed donor and therefore could be illegal money.
In 2014 40% of campaign ads were funded by dark money and in the senate race that same
year 70% of the money funding the candidates was dark money(Ways Citizens United Hurts
Democracy,6). Unlimited Campaign Financing affects every citizen of the US except for the 1%
and shakes the bones of democracy. Without fixing the corrupt political system in play now, how
can the U.S. expect to fix any other problems?
Campaign financing also corrupts candidates, many representatives convicted of
receiving bribes plead that they had no idea their bribers were not simply helping finance their
campaign. They plead there is no fine line between bribing and campaign financing and many
dont know the difference (The Atlantic, 1). Unless something is done to stop the cash flow into
representatives hands the U.S.s representatives will keep on receiving bribes unintentionally,
and ultimately corrupting the integrity of our country's government.

Unlimited donations to Super PACs also gives corporations an unfair advantage over the
common person. It is insensible to believe that even the upper crust of the U.S. can keep up
with a whole corporation financially(Influence and Lobbying, 3). Therefore receiving donations
from corporations is the candidate's main goal, while ignoring the many small donors that truly
represent Americas views. While there is no solid proof of corporations influencing candidates

decisions, there have been sketchy moments in which corporations influencing candidates
decisions have been suspected. In 2000, when Bush was running for president, an energy
company based in Houston named Enron donated a substantial amount of money to Bush.
They donated $2.5 million making Enron the highest donating energy company and the 36th
highest corporate donor (Globalization of Campaign Financing, 4). After Bush was elected, he
passed 6 bills that decreased regulations protecting individuals that were extremely beneficial
for Enron. The bills in turn multiplied Enrons revenue by nearly three times (Globalization of
Campaign Financing, 4). In all, corporations donating limitless money to candidates PACs
coerces a candidate to pass bills beneficial for their corporate donors and not the majority of
people. This needs to stop or the purity of Americas political system is compromised.
If Congress does not pass a bill limiting donations the integrity and democratic principles
of our country will continue to decline. As of now Americas government is flawed and corrupt.
While the US claims to be a representative democracy, those who contribute most to a
candidate have more input in the candidates decisions than a voter unable to contribute to the
candidates campaign. Big money rules over legislative branches of the U.S. political system as
statistics show there is a clear indicator between money spent on a campaign and likelihood of
winning. In the House 94% of candidates who spent the most money won and in the Senate
82% of biggest spenders won their races (Money is a Good Predictor of who will win Elections,
7). Campaign financing leads to bribes and from there a corrupt political system. One belief is
that if voters acknowledge which candidates accept Super PAC money and who doesnt, the
voters can vote according to those statistics. However, with dark money so prominent in
elections it is almost impossible to know who is funding a candidate's campaign. Another reason
this does not work is the fact that candidates do not publicly announce the total amount of
money received from donors. This makes it near impossible for someone with no internet and/or
little education to find and understand those stats, making the only people able to take money

into consideration while voting the upper class, totally defying the beliefs of a representative
democracy.
It is easy to say that the government should just outlaw unregulated spending to Super
PACs but there is no easy way to do so. If the U.S. makes it illegal for individuals and
corporations to donate to Super PACs then how will a candidates campaign be paid for. The
biggest problem with passing a bill to limit donations to PACs is the problem that plagued the
cases of Citizens United and Buckley vs Valeo, the belief that money is speech. In both cases
judges ruled that money is an expression of speech. If one person wants to buy an ad
expressing their views using money than that is totally fine and legal according to our
constitution. The point seems pretty set in stone and difficult to fix. However, there are
exceptions to free speech. For example it is illegal for one to shout fire in a crowded building
and it is illegal to lie to people to scam them for their money. This shows that there are
exceptions to free speech and limiting donations needs to be another one of those exceptions.
One possible way to solve this problem is letting each candidate fund their campaigns with their
own money. On one hand, it would be beneficial if each candidate was compelled to spend less
on their campaigns forcing candidates to campaign in person, not by commercials. On the other
hand, only rich people could run if candidates had to fund their own campaigns. Another
possible way to solve this problem is by creating one massive Super PAC for all the candidates.
This way if one donated money, the money would be equally distributed to all the candidates.
This would make all campaigns equal financially and getting small donations from many donors
would be the difference in a campaign. This would make the common person the most
important person to campaign to. The downside of this solution is that many large donors to
Super PACs would not be interested in donating if they had no control over where their money
was going.

One other possible way to stop unlimited donations to Super PACs while keeping a
campaign functional is having the government give a set amount of money to each candidate to
fund each campaign. This way all campaigns would be financially equal. The winner would be
elected based on how well candidates spend their money and whoever is the best
representative for the people. However, Americans hate to pay taxes, even for worthy causes.
There would be much objection to paying more taxes to fix a problem that many citizens have
no issue with. One more problem is the number of candidates the government funds. If 10
people run in the Democratic primary and another 10 in the Republican primary paying a large
bill to cover their expenses would be taking a lot out of the government's pocket. This solution
also would take two bills, one to eliminate donations to PACs and the other to have the
government fund each campaign. While the solution has its flaws it is definitely possible to
achieve. Government funding of campaigns is proven possible, in many other advanced
democratic countries all campaigns are government funded (Campaign Financing, 2). Taxes can
be raised, hard campaigning for legislation to pass two bills is plausible, and the government
only has to fund the top five candidates for each party depending on polls. If congress pushes
hard enough and awareness is raised around the world on this serious issue then passing a bill
like this could be possible in the next 10 years.

Campaign finance is a tricky issue that no one knows how to handle, however,
Congress cannot just sit back and let unrestricted campaign financing drive America into the
ground. In most cases if something endangers the U.S., Congress immediately puts a stop to it,
however on this controversial issue the government has sat back speechless. Congress needs
to pass a bill limiting donations to Super PACs or else power in government will be dependent
on financial status, corruption in the government will be rampant, and corporations will have
inequitable power compared to the populous. These effects will severely harm the integral
functions of the American system.

Annotated Bibliography
1.http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/legalized-corruption-and-the-twilight-ofcampaign-finance-law/360051/

The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

This article gave me insight on the bribing that goes on with Campaign Finance.
2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance

Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

The page was essential as it provided me with much background knowledge and gave me some
interesting facts about Campaign finance globally speaking. I referred to it many times when this issue
confused me.
3.https://www.opensecrets.org/influence/

"Influence & Lobbying." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
This article helped me understand the type of influence money has had on political candidates.
4.http://www.democracymatters.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-money-in-politics2/overview/globalization-of-campaign-funding-the-problem-of-private-money-in-politics/

"Globalization of Campaign Funding: The Problem of Private Money In Politics Democracy Matters." Democracy Matters. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
This article provided me with insight on corporations distorting the political system
5.http://www.demos.org/publication/top-5-ways-citizens-united-harms-democracy-top-5-ways-we
%E2%80%99re-fighting-take-democracy-back

"Top 5 Ways Citizens United Harms Democracy & Top 5 Ways We're Fighting to Take
Democracy Back." Top 5 Ways Citizens United Harms Democracy & Top 5 Ways
We're Fighting to Take Democracy Back. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
This was the most essential page as it pointed out many problems with Campaign Finance and
provided logical reasoning.
6.http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/
Provided me with facts on how much political candidates have raised in the past elections.
7.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/money-pretty-good-predictor-will-win-elections/

"Money Is Pretty Good Predictor of Who Will Win Elections." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 20
Apr. 2016.

Works Cited
The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
"Globalization of Campaign Funding: The Problem of Private Money In Politics - Democracy
Matters." Democracy Matters. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
"Influence & Lobbying." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
"Top 5 Ways Citizens United Harms Democracy & Top 5 Ways We're Fighting to Take
Democracy Back." Top 5 Ways Citizens United Harms Democracy & Top 5 Ways We're
Fighting to Take Democracy Back. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
"2016 Presidential Race." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

"Money Is Pretty Good Predictor of Who Will Win Elections." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 20
Apr. 2016.