Campaign Finance
For most of the twentieth century campaign finance has been dominated by political parties. This was mainly due to their control over the campaigns themselves. The parties managed every aspect of the campaign, much of it without the need for cash. Instead, the campaigning relied on services volunteered or bartered for some party-controlled favor. However, when the party needed cash it was raised, and more often than not, the cash came from the candidates. The candidate's contributions were often expected when necessary, as a condition of receiving the party's nomination. However, the candidate could not be relied on for large sums of money. In this case the parties depended on the storied fat cats, or men of wealth. Insurance executive Clement Stone and his wife Jessie are the record-holding fat cats, giving $2.8 million to Richard Nixon's first presidential victory. While some local campaigns did not use any fat cats, none were able to compete with major party campaigns. In 1928, 69.7% of the receipts of the Democratic National Committee, and 68.4% of the receipts of the Republican National Committee came from contributions of $1,000 or greater. The political dominance by the parties, and their big contributors, exten
* Political action committees and party committees were limited to contributions of $5,000 per candidate per election (or $10,000 in the cycle). Campaign finance has always been a stand-out issue in politics. There is seemingly constant question involving illegal activities and reform. There are, as with any public issue, contrasting support from the public. After a study done by the Committee for Economic Development, they wrote, "The American public believes that our campaign finance system is broken. The vast majority of citizens feel that money threatens the basic fairness and integrity of our political system." I asked two middle-aged white males, on separate occasions about the campaign finance regulations. One said, "Limits on how much someone wants to spend or contribute for political reasons is unconstitutional." The other, "The government should supply each candidate with an equal amount of money for their campaign, period." However, on the other side of the spectrum, there are many who support and participate in campaign financing. By count of the NES , 10.2% of all Americans made a financial contribution to a candidate, political party, or "political group." Most of these contributors are better educated, earn higher incomes, and work in higher-status occupations. However, recently the number of individual contributors has decreased, while the PACs are becoming bigger and bigger political contributors to candidates. * Full voluntary public funding was instituted at a spending limit ($20 million in 1974 dollars) for major party candidates in the post-convention, general election campaign. There were constitutional issues raised after the 1974 FECA. Less than two years after the amendments the FECA, the court heard an attack on their constitutionality in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. In its decision, the Supreme Court "held for the first time" that the giving and spending of campaign money was protected by the First Amendment. While the Court upheld the FECA's limits on contributions, it struck down all of tits clauses limiting expenditures except those by political parties. Congress took its first step to reform in 1907, in reaction to growth in political power and new corporate wealth. It outlawed contributions to congressional and presidential candidates by banks or corporations. The ban on corporate contribution still stands today. Other reforms by congress were less enduring, including a disclosure law in 1911 and enacting limits on House and Senate candidate spending the same year. In 1925, it passed legislation to reinforce reporting requirements and raise spending limits. Continued legislation in 1940 added contribution limits to the regulation for the first time. Individuals were limited to contributing $5,000 to a candidate for the presidency or Congress. Closely following these regulations, the restriction on corporate contrib
Some common words found in the essay are:
Economic Development, Finally Congress, Jeffrey Birnbuam, National Committee, Birnbaum Including, Jeffrey Birnbaum, Presidential Elections, Soon Watergate, , Amendment Court, campaign finance, political parties, party committees, fat cats, major party, campaign financing, limits contributions, 1974 dollars, campaign money, buckley valeo, clement stone wife,
Approximate Word count = 1958
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
