Campaign+Finance+Law


 * CAMPAIGN FINANCE **

toc =Past Campaign Finance Law & Social Influences =

//Naval appropriations bill// – The Naval appropriations bill prohibited military officers and government employees from demanding naval yard workers to give them money (Fuller, 2014).
 * 1867 **

Before this bill was passed, government officers and employees were “shaking down” yard workers for donations (Context).

//Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act// – This law made it illegal for public officials to “solicit” contributions from civil service workers, or appoint jobs based on anything other than merit. It was passed two years after Charles Guiteau killed James Garfield. Mr. Guiteau was denied a position by the president. This was a time when many civil service workers had to pay to keep or get a job (Fuller, 2014).
 * 1883 **

This bill was created as an extension of the Naval appropriations bill to cover civil service workers. Prior to this law civil service workers were expected to make campaign donations in order to keep their job. It was passed following the assignation of President James Garfield. Guiteau, the man who killed Garfield, was believed, to be promised a job in the President’s administration. This bill created a “merit system” instead of “patronage system” (Context)

//Tillman Act// – The Tillman Act made it illegal for corporations to give contributions to federal candidates. But there was no good way to enforce this (Fuller, 2014). The Tillman Act was passed due President Roosevelt’s insistence. He made a speech to congress in 1905 where he proposed that corporations should be forbidden to make any contributions to “any political committee or for any political purpose.” It is believed that he made this speech in response to accusations of “improperly taking corporate donations” in his 1904 campaign (Context).
 * 1907 **

//Federal Corrupt Practices Act// – This act required house candidates to disclose their finances. The following year the senate and primary candidates were required to do the same.
 * 1910 - (1925) **

In 1925 the law was expanded to require all contributions over $100 dollars to be recorded. Additionally, the Senate spending limit was increased to $25,000 (Fuller, 2014). Also, House spending limit was set to $5,000 (Context).

//Public Utilities Holding Act-// This act bans utility companies from contributing to federal campaigns. It was passed because these types of companies were gaining a lot of power under the Franklin Roosevelt administration (Context).
 * 1935**

//Smith-Connally Act//- This prohibited the unions from making contributions to federal candidates. Labor Unions were using dues to make contributions to make donations, and then they formed PAC’s as a “work around” (Fuller, 2014)
 * 1943 **

This was in response to the growing power and influence the labor unions had in elections. It’s goal was to make “lawmakers less dependent on unions and their contributions.” (Context)

//Federal Election Campaign Act// (FECA)- This act required full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. Also, it set limits on how much could be spent on media advertisements. This act also set up a system for PACs to have a separate segregated fund. This allows them to collect voluntary contributions, wherein they can use this fund to contribute to federal races (The Federal). Additionally, it set limits on how much individuals can contribute to their own campaigns, 50,000, 35,000 and 25,000 for Presidential, Senate and House camp aigns respectively. (Contex)
 * 1971 **

This act didn’t set up a single body to monitor compliance with these laws. The Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate and the Comptroller General were in charge of monitoring compliance and the Justice department was to prosecute violations. Over 7,000 cases were referred to the Justice department after the 1972 election and “few were litigated" (The Federal). This bill was signed into law due to public anger with the Vietnam war along with a push led by an organization called Common Cause. This organization is a campaign “watchdog.” They sued both the Democratic and Republican parties for violating the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, however they were not successful in court. But this attempt led to a “push” to change campaign finance (Context).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//Revenue Act// – The Revenue act was the first law to implement federal financing of presidential elections. It gave a check box on tax forms that citizens could check indicating that they would like a dollar of their taxes to go toward the financing of Presidential campaigns in general elections (The Federal).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1971 **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//Amendments//- The Federal Election Commission was formed to monitor compliance with the campaign finance law, specifically the Federal Election Campaign Act. Additionally, this commission had authority in civil enforcement matters,and had the ability to write regulations. Also after this amendment, the function as serving as a national clearinghouse for “administration of elections,” transferred from the GAO to the commission (The Federal).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1974 **

This round of amendments came in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It offers full financing for presidential general elections, and matching funds in primaries. Congress also put strict campaign contribution and expenditure limits on all Federal candidates. (Context).


 * Presidential Campaigns – 20 million (general elections), 10 million (primaries)
 * Senate Campaigns - $150,000 (general elections), $100,000 (primaries)
 * House Campaigns - $70,000 (general and primaries)
 * Individual Contributions limit set at $25,000 per year

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//Amendments//- The Buckley v Valeo ruling found it unconstitutional to put limits on expenditures because it limited the quantity of campaign speech. So, following this ruling congress repealed expenditure limits. Also, In 1976 there were amendments made to the people the PACs could solicit and how they can do it (The Federal).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">1976 **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">//McCain- Feingold bill / Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act// – This act was designed to limit “soft money” contributions, which is money raised by Political action committees and national parties for “get out the vote." Soft money’s purpose was vague and regulating it was equally as vague. So, parties were able to raise “unlimited” amounts of money for these “get out the vote” activities, but were using the money for “far wider purposes” (Fuller, 2014).
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">2002 **

Additionally, the bill aimed to eliminate “issue advertising.” This is advertisements ran to promote or attack a candidate by an organization that isn’t “directly affiliated” with that candidate (Context).

=<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Key Court Cases in Depth =

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Buckley v. Valeo

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The court ruled that there could be no restrictions on contributions from individuals or groups, only if they were independent of any official election campaigns. The ruling in this case gave rise to the introduction of Political Action Committees, or better known as PACs. The ruling also constitutes an effective obstacle for campaign finance reform. It first, equates money with speech, prohibiting governments from imposing spending limits on campaigns (ILSR 2008). It also acknowledges that large contributions can be seen as a potential for corrupting and allowing them to be capped. This decision created a condition for a black market in "soft-money," creating a high demand for a suppressed amount of donations. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of limits on individual and committee donations to candidates. The ruling declared that mandatory limits on candidates spending of their own money, limits on individual expenditures and limits on total campaign spending constitute violations of the 1st Amendment (ILSR 2008). If money equated to speech, they should be able to pay for more time, and citizens should have the right to bribe elected officials. The opponents of Buckley v Valeo are making efforts to challenge the Supreme Court's decision in this case. In the meantime, the ruling stands and campaign finance laws must conform to it (ILSR 2008).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">McConnell v. FEC

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The courts in a 5-4 decision answered "no" to the two following questions brought about the legality of the "soft money" ban. The first question posed by the courts was if the "soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress' authority to regulate elections under Article I Section IV of the Constitution and/or violate the Constitution's 1st Amendment freedom of speech protection. The second question posed by the court wonder if regulations of the source, content, or timing of political advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 violate the 1st Amendment's free speech clause (Ambrose Digital) The court's majority opinion deferred to the judgment of Congress regarding its regulation of the electoral process, where it enjoys "particular expertise." The court also recognized the "important governmental interests" in limiting the appearance and corruption and protecting the "public confidence in the electoral process," with the notion that both the "common sense and ample record" confirm Congress' findings that soft money donations give rise to actual or apparent corruption (Democracy21).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Citizens United v. FEC

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The 5-4 decision handed down by the court stated that the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle, with the inherent belief that the federal government should not be able to regulate political speech. The opinion from the dissent believed that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would be cause the corruption of democracy. As a mainly partisan position, the 5-4 decision held by the majority opinion held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent broadcasts cannot be limited (oyez Citizens United v FEC). "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining and jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech," stated Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for the majority opinion (Liptak 2010). The result of the Citizens United ruling has allowed a large influx of cash to flow into so called Super Political Action Committees, or Super PACs. A recent analysis of the 2014 Senate races by the Brennan Center for Justice found outside spending more than doubled since 2010, to $486 million. The analysis also illustrates that outside groups provided 47% of total spending, more than the candidates’ 41% in 10 competitive races than last year’s midterms. “The premise that the Supreme Court was relying on, that these groups would be truly independent of the candidates themselves, is very questionable,” according to Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, one of the three Democrats on the six member Federal Election Committee (Levy, 2015). The contradiction between the court’s stated desire for transparency, eight justices joined the portion of Citizens United that upheld federal disclosure requirements. By its definition, corporations as considered as people protected by the First Amendment created a loophole that campaigns and PACs are all too happy to use to their advantage (Levy, 2015). The result of this is that a small group of wealthy donors are able to gain an exuberant influence on elections, which may continue to hold that influence once their candidate they financed takes office. Many people are not angered at the amount of money that is being poured into elections, per se, the public against the Citizens United ruling are angered at the fact that a small number of wealthy individuals are able to spend the majority of the contributions.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">McCutcheon v. FEC

The ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC states that the government cannot prevent citizens from giving campaign contributions to as many different candidates and political parties as they want. Prior to McCutcheon v. FEC, individuals were limited from giving more than $48,600 to all federal candidates (Beckel, 2014). Individuals were also prohibited from giving more than $74,600 combined to all parties and political action committees. These spending limits have now been dissipated since the ruling of McCutcheon. Although these limits have been removed, this ruling does not allow donors to contribute as much money as they want, because the Supreme Court upheld the existing "base" contribution limits. Maximum amounts that donors can give to each candidate is $2,600, or $5,200 when counting both the primary and general elections. The maximum contribution to a national party committee is still $32,400 and the maximum PAC contribution is still $5,000 (Beckel, 2014). One large advantage that McCutcheon gives to candidates is that it allows them to easily band together and raise larger sums of money through legal “joint fundraising committees.” Joint fundraising committees let contributors write a large single check to what is known as an umbrella group. This allows a large sum of money to be split up amongst many small beneficiaries. McCutcheon means more money for the national party committees, allowing donors to give the legal maximum of $32,400 apiece to the national party committees. McCutcheon is different from the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC because Citizens United only affects spending, not contribution limits. Citizens United allowed for unlimited donations from corporations, unions, and individuals to go to super PACs and nonprofits. Many people are worried with the McCutcheon ruling because of the potential for corruption that could become prevalent with the formation of jumbo joint fundraising committees.

=<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Supreme Court Precedent for Campaign Finance Regulation =

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Jurisprudence regarding the laws that regulation amounts, sources, and types of money used in federal and state elections is some of the most commonly overruled by the Supreme Court. Since the mid-twentieth century, the Supreme Court has changed is precedent multiple time concerning who is allowed to donate, what counts as a donation, how much someone is allowed to donate, and what the transparency of the system must be. This section will outline the courts' reasoning for upholding and restricting campaign finance regulations at various points in times and expand upon the specific areas which the court has disagreed.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The first campaign finance ruling made by the Supreme Court was in 1921 with Newberry v. United States, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Federal Corrupt Practices Act as an unconstitutional expansion of Congress's power over the electoral process. However, the current Constitutional controversy over campaign finance laws stems back to the court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, as the first case concerning campaign finance as a potential violation of the Bill of Rights. The particular right the court examined in this case was the First Amendment freedom of speech, which quickly became the basis for many future challenges to campaign finance laws. In this ruling, the court struck down limits on expenditure by candidates and independent expenditures but upheld limits on individual campaign contributions establishing the following precedent:


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Spending money in the campaign realm, while conduct and solely speech, is still protected by strict scrutiny under the First Amendment as a means of expression as money is often a necessary tool to engage in speech.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The court narrowly defined the government interest of limiting corruption to only include quid pro quo corruption and not the greater appearance of corruption.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The court dismissed the government interest in promoting equality of voice in the electoral process as a compelling government interest.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The court ruled that quid pro quo corruption was only a compelling enough interest in limiting individual campaign contributions and not expenditures, thus striking down the limits on expenditures.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The court upheld laws requiring the disclosure of donors when they are used for expressly political reasons despite the First Amendment protections because of the government's compelling right to provide transparency in the election process.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">(Smith, 2003)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Since that ruling, there have been several court cases, which have called alter parts of the precedent established in Buckley. One case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, upheld a ban on corporations making independent expenditures in a campaign because this was likely to lead to corrupt behavior. This ruling defined corruption more broadly than the quid pro quo definition in Buckley, stating that corporations could unfairly influence elections due to their accumulated wealth. In FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the precedent of Buckley was again slightly altered. The court ruled that expenditures made in coordination with a candidates campaign could be constitutionally limited. The court's reasoning was that this limitation does not pose a significant First Amendment threat because the purpose of spending money in coordination with a candidate is to indicate support of that candidate which is shown no matter the amount spent. In its 2003 decision in McConnell v. FEC, the court upheld the expenditure restrictions of BCRA again agreeing that the government interest of protecting against the appearance of corruption was compelling enough to limit First Amendment rights. (Barnes, 2012)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Citizen United v. FEC was the case that shook everything up. In this case the court established many new precedents overturning part of precedents set in Buckley, Austin, and McConnell. Citizen's United upheld portions of precedent including that money was equivalent to speech, which has been upheld by the court on many occasions. The ruling however overturned a great deal as well. This decision blatantly overturned the precedent established in the Austin case that the government could restrict the independent expenditures through the promotion of corporate person-hood, the idea that corporations are protected by the same First Amendment rights as individuals. Individuals are allowed to make independent expenditures as protected by the First Amendment, and therefore so are corporations. The decision also reverted to the definition of corruption originally established in Buckley of quid pro quo corruption as opposed to that in McConnell, which defined corruption in the more broad sense as the appearance of corruption. (Dowling and Miller, 2014)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In an even more recent case, McCutcheon v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that limits on aggregate individual donations were unconstitutional. Individuals were still limited in the amount they could donate to a single candidate, as this was still considered symbolic speech, but they can now donate the maximum amount to as many candidates as they see fit. This court decision directly overturned the precedent of Buckley, which limited overall contributions made by individuals. The justification for this disregard of Stare Decisis was that quid pro quo corruption, the definition of corruption the Roberts court has consistently adhered to, is not likely to occur. This case also struck down the precedent in McConnell, which restricted how much a candidate could solicit. (Dunn, 2015)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The point is that jurisprudence over campaign finance law is incredibly complex but revolves around a couple key areas; the extent of freedom of speech rights, the government interest in restricting such rights, and the definition of corruption by the court. Throughout the past 40 years, the court has changed its mind several times in all of these key areas. They have at times found freedom of speech to be constitutionally restricted and other times not when spending money in campaigns. These shifts are part of the reason campaign finance law and reform remains so controversial today; there is no single interpretation of the Constitution to guide laws or public opinion in the matter.

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Current Campaign Finance Regulations =

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The current campaign finance regulations favor incumbents, stifle grassroots activity, constrict political debate, and infringe on traditional First Amendment freedoms.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There are currently three primary methods used to regulate campaign finance. They are disclosure, contribution limits, and public financing of campaigns.

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Disclosure __ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">All 50 states mandate that candidates for elective office report the contributions they receive and the expenditures they make while pursuing public office. The [|2015 Campaign Finance Legislation Database] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">provides examples of laws introduced this year that deal with disclosure requirements. The FECA (Federal Election Campaign Acts) also requires candidate committees, party committees, and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend.

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Contribution Limits __ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There are current limits on the amount of money any group or individual can contribute to a campaign. The FECA is one example of the organization that places limits on the candidates. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Limits apply to various participants and donors. For instance, what an individual can contribute is much different than what a National Party Committee can contribute. The [|Contribution Limits] chart for 2015-2016 Federal Elections provides greater detail on what each donor can contribute to the recipient.

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Public Financing __ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Public financing of campaigns is a means by which candidates can accept public funds to conduct their campaign. They make certain promises to not raise capital and can only spend on their campaign an amount established by the state.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There are also Federal Election Campaign Laws, which are compiled by the FEC (Federal Election Commission). The FEC is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign laws. The Federal Election Campaign Laws are a compilation of the laws governing the financing of federal elections, including the requirements administered by other government agencies. There are sections on the tax code, broadcast communications, and criminal provisions that relate to elections and political activity (Federal, 2015).

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Current Political Debate =

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The political debate surrounding campaign finance reform has escalated in the past several years because of many of these new cases which have increased the amount of money in the political system. Spending in the 2012 election increased drastically from before //Citizen's United// and has since led to a swing the public opinion towards reform. In June of 2015, a //New York Times// poll reported that 46% of Americans want to completely rebuild the system and 39% want fundamental changes, meaning that an overwhelming 85% of Americans see the need for reform.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: 0px; overflow: hidden;">

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In light of the Supreme Court cases however, there is still a vibrant debate in the country over its merits and constitutionality. This debate addresses several key areas of disagreement:
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Whether more money is good or bad for an individual's political expression
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Whether campaign donations corrupt politicians
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Whether an individual has the a right to privacy in campaign donations

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Money Limits Individual's Political Expression: __

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, the Court ruled that money was equivalent to speech because money is often needed to make effective speech. This meant that limiting money in politics was akin to limiting speech protected under the First Amendment and must pass the test of strict scrutiny. Over the preceding 40 years, the Court slowly began to strike down almost all campaign finance laws as infringements on freedom of speech. This is how they were then perceived by those that decided they did not support campaign finance laws. However, there is the case to be made that the equivalency of speech and money is misled and the pervasiveness of money in the political system actually limits an individual's right to express themselves effectively.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">First off, the ruling that money as a means to promote speech is afforded the same political protections as pure speech is a misreading of speech itself. Speech is something afforded to all Americans through their voices, writing, and clothing among other things. Everyone has the same ability to speak and express themselves regardless of their social or economic status. It is an important foundation of democracy that all people have the same rights to speech and expression. Therefore, it is misleading to weigh money with the same protections as speech because money is inherently unequal while speech and expression is inherently equal (Gaughan, 2012). There are Supreme Court justices and prominent legal scholars who maintain that money does not equal speech. Justice Stevens asserted in Nixon v. Shrink (2000) that "Speech has the power to inspire...money, meanwhile, has the power to hire laborers to preform these tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results."

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Even if, however, the Supreme Court ruling the money equals speech is granted, huge amounts of such money in the political system actually limit the ability of all people to express their First Amendment rights. This is because, as more and more money floods the system, there is more and more money required to effectively express oneself, which defeats the original purpose of protecting money in regards to speech. There then develops a large imbalance between those that can and those that cannot express their political opinions. This imbalance becomes particularly apparent when corporations are afforded the same protections as an individual and have even greater resources to use in politics. This imbalance of money also creates an imbalance in abilities, rights, and protections, which greatly threaten our democracy and under-represent poorer segments of the population (Gaughan, 2012).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Campaign Donations Corrupt Politicians: __

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The debate over money as a corrupting influence has shifted in interpretation by the Court on multiple occasions. The current ruling, from Citizens United v. FEC, is that the only corruption that constitutes a compelling government interest is quid pro quo corruption, meaning straight bribery and exchange of money. This interpretation is a very narrowly constructed understanding of the concept and ignores reality.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Corruption is in fact a much larger concept that can relate to more than the simple exchange on money or goods, most notably in the form of influence. The majority opinion in McConnell v. FEC discussed the influence large financial donors may have in swaying the opinions of their congressmen in their favor. This means that instead of perhaps listening to the interests of their constituents, as Congressmen and supposed to, they may be listening to richer and larger outside interests.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Beyond, ignoring the true impact of corruption, the assertion that the appearance of corruption does not disillusion the public is also false. The public has become much more apathetic and disinterested in the political system the more money they perceive to be impacting it. As such, they become less participatory and further harm the democratic institutions of this country.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[|Hillary Clinton Corruption Scandal]

__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Transparency in Political Donations is Critical: __

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">For many proponents of campaign finance reform, the first step in reforming the system is to increase transparency. Currently there are many avenues that both individuals and larger groups can employ to skirt around laws that force the disclosure of donations. Moreover, a great deal of money is not disclosed because the enforcing body, the Federal Election Commission, is relatively inept. The ability of donors to hide their identity under the pretense of privacy harms citizens consuming information. Voters need to be aware of the sources of money flow to evaluate their motivations and interests and accurately assess the legitimacy of a political figure. Without transparency, large corporations and wealthy individuals can wield even greater influence without the knowledge of the public. (Bassetti, 2015).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Arguments Against Campaign Finance Reform
__<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Campaign Finance Reform would constitute an assault on free speech: __

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Instead of allowing as much speech as possible for the citizens of the United States, elected officials have engaged in self-preservation at the cost of the First Amendment (Siggins, 2014). If a standard were to be put on the people and corporations raising the money, wouldn't the same restriction apply to newspapers for example The New York Times? These are organizations and corporations that are involved in political speech. Free speech is a basic right to Americans. It is not an exclusive favor for politicians to give at their own discretion (Siggins, 2014).

__Few changes will actually be made:__

Fixing the problems associated with campaign finance are not going to be solved with a few changes to the donation limit. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Campaign finance reform already protects the incumbents. Lifting the spending limits will only increase their already apparent advantage over the competition. Money clearly talks in this area and the candidate with the most is going to speak the loudest (List, 2015). Rather than focusing on creating a new system of campaign finance, fixing the current one might offer more impactful results in the long run.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[|Campaign Finance Reform Problems]

__Legal limits have always been easy to work around and will continue to be:__

Reforming the spending limits will do very little to democratize the election process. In fact, it would only increase the gap between the wealthy and middle class. As seen throughout history, it is seemingly simple and easy for the wealthier donors to skirt their way around the limits they can donate. The current rules and regulations are allowing this to happen. Essentially, trying to fix a problem that will inevitably continue is useless.

media type="custom" key="28104273" align="center"

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">__References__: = Ambrose Digital. (2005). McConnell v Federal Exchange Committee. Retrieved from http://www.ambrosedigital.com/component/page,shop.getfile/file_id,2002/product_id,16074/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,59/

Analysis of Supreme Court Decision Upholding BCRA | Democracy21Democracy21. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.democracy21.org/archives/key-documents-archives/court-cases-opinions-and-briefs/mcconnell-v-fec/analysis-of-supreme-court-decision-upholding-bcra/

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Barnes, Robert. "Super PAC Mania!" Columbia Law Magazine. Spring, 2012. http://www.law.columbia.edu/magazine/621141

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bassetti, Victoria. "How to Make Campaign Finance Disclosure Work." Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University of Law. May 11, 2015. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/how-make-campaign-finance-disclosure-work <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Dowling, Conor M. and Michael Miller. Super PAC! Money, Elections, and Voters after Citizen's United. New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2014.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Beckel, M. (2014, August 26). The 'McCutcheon' decision explained — more money to pour into political process | Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-decision-explained-more-money-pour-political-process

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 30, 2015. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205>

Context of '1867: First Campaign Finance Bill Passed' (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1867navalappbill

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Dunn, Hannah. "The Changing Standards of Campaign Finance Regulation: The Real Impact of McCutcheon v. FEC." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 2015. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2930&context=llr

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Federal Campaign Finance Laws." Federal Campaign Finance Laws. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Fuller, Jaime. "From George Washington to Shaun McCutcheon: A Brief-ish History of Campaign Finance Reform." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 3 Apr. 2014. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Gaughan, Melissa. "Corporations are Not People: An Analysis of Citizens United v. FEC." University of Puget Sound; Sound Ideas. Summer, 2012.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Institute for Local Self-Reliance. (2008). Defending the public good. Retrieved from https://ilsr.org/rule/campaign/2187-2/

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Levy, G. (2015, January 21). 5 Years Later, Citizens United Has Remade U.S. Politics - US News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics

Liptak, A. (2010, January 21). Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all

"List of Pros and Cons of Campaign Finance Reform." Occupytheory. N.p., 24 June 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://occupytheory.org/list-of-pros-and-cons-of-campaign-finance-reform/>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Siggins, Dustin. "Campaign Finance Reform Is an Assault on Free Speech." National Review Online. N.p., 2 May 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377154/campaign-finance-reform-assault-free-speech-dustin-siggins>.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Smith, Bradley. Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.

The Federal Election Campaign Laws: A Short History. (n.d.). Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm#anchor620139