Campaign Finance Reform, Research Paper Example

The issue of campaign finance and the effect that money has on the political process has long been a source of controversy in the United States. Questions about transparency and about the potential for undue influence of “big money” donors are raised by supporters of campaign finance reform, while proponents of less regulation assert that restrictions on campaign donations and other spending are nothing less than restrictions on free speech. A number of recent court cases have had a significant impact on the debate, both in terms of the direct impact of the legal decisions and in terms of how individuals and groups on all sides of the debate have used these decisions as support for their arguments. The ongoing controversies and concerns about the potential for abuse and corruption in the political processes make it clear that campaign finance reform is needed to ensure that such abuse and corruption is minimized to as great an extent as possible.

One of the most well-known Supreme Court cases in recent years related to campaign finance is the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010. In this decision, the Court determined that corporations have the same right as individuals to spend money on so-called “political speech” (Garrett, 2011). Opponents of this decision raise concerns that the capability for corporations to spend money on political campaigns and political advocacy will allow such organizations to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections. Such spending will clearly make it possible for corporations to have a greater influence on elections than most individual private citizens would have, and will tilt elections in favor of corporations.

The most significant issue in campaign finance is disclosure. Current campaign finance laws allow for a number of loopholes regarding disclosure of campaign donations. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as McCain-Feingold) required groups that spend $10,000 per year or more on “electioneering communications” to disclose the names of contributors who donated $1000 or more (brennancenter.org, 2012).  The Federal Elections Commission allowed such groups a wide loophole, mandating that disclosures be made only when those donating specifically earmarked their donations for use in “electioneering communications.” This and countless other loopholes make it possible for PACs, corporations, and other groups to avoid disclosing information about who is donating money, how much money is being donated, and how such money is being spent .

The recent case of Patrick Cannon, who just resigned as mayor of Charlotte, N.C., demonstrates the need for campaign finance reform. Cannon has been accused of accepting large amounts of money in the form of secret political donations in return for providing favorable government actions to donors (Schofield, 2014). This is just one example of how a lack of transparency can have a harmful effect on the political system. At all levels of politics, from local and state politics to the federal elections for members of Congress and for the Presidency, current campaign finance laws allow for enormous sums of money to be spent in secret. Even if campaign finance reform allows decisions like Citizens United to stand, it will still have some positive effect if the public is allowed to see where all the money in the political process is coming from and where all the money is going.

There are a number of organizations, such as Americans for Campaign Reform, who are pushing for significant changes to our political system. Such changes include a Presidential Public Funding Act that would level the playing field for all candidates and make all contributions completely transparent (acrreform.org, 2014). There are enormous roadblocks to such changes, posed both by the major political parties and the same corporations and PACs that currently enjoy the ability to raise and spend enormous sums of money in secret. At the same time, however, as more campaign finance abuses are uncovered, the individuals and groups pushing for change will be able to make stronger cases for their positions.  The question is not whether campaign finance reform is necessary, but whether its supporters will be able to surmount the challenges posed by those who benefit from the current system.

Works cited

Garrett, R. Sam. The State of Campaign Finance Policy: Recent Developments and Issues for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2011. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/162766.pdf. Print.

Schofield, Rob. “The Patrick Cannon mess: Helping to make the case once again for campaign finance reform | The Progressive Pulse.” Pulse.ncpolicywatch.org, 2014. Web. 28 Mar 2014. <http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2014/03/27/the-patrick-cannon-mess-making-the-case-once-again-for-campaign-finance-reform/>.

Unknown. “Can New York Lead on Campaign Finance Reform?.” Nytimes.com, 2014. Web. 27 Mar 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/opinion/can-new-york-lead-on-campaign-finance-reform.html>.

Unknown. “Van Hollen v. FEC | Brennan Center for Justice.” Brennancenter.org, 2014. Web. 28 Mar 2014. <https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/van-hollen-v-fec>.

Unknown. “The Facts.” Americans for Campaign Reform, 2014. Web. 28 Mar 2014. <http://www.acrreform.org/facts/>.