Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: Campaign Finance Reform |
 |
|
With McCain now the presumed nominee of the Republican Party I've been thinking about his legacy and what he might do as President. Massive war with the Middle East is clearly a goal, but what about his pet issues. Would McCain make a real change on campaign finance as President?
If I were him my first act would be to prevent rich guys from self-funding their campaign. I suppose it's a right for the wealthy to overwhelm their rivals, but somehow it doesn't sit right with me. I would think, after facing Romney and Bush, McCain would feel the same way.
Here's a synopsis of the debate, and McCain-Feingold, from opensecrets.org...
| Quote: |
Campaign Finance Reform
WHAT�S THE ISSUE?
It�s no secret that the cost of running for office is rising. The total price of the 2004 presidential and congressional elections was $4 billion (and perhaps a lot more), up from nearly $3 billion in 2000, $2.2 billion in 1996 and $1.8 billion in 1992. TV ads, political consultants, and other major sources of campaign spending have driven up the cost of running for office, and there are no signs of a slowdown in the fast-rising need for campaign cash among candidates and parties.
Critics of the current campaign finance system fear that the growing amount of money pouring into elections is having a corrupting influence on politics. The more money that is involved in running for office, critics say, the more influence that donors � wealthy individuals, companies, labor unions, interest groups � have over elected officials and public policy. These concerns gave rise to several campaign finance bills, the most prominent of which was the McCain-Feingold bill � named for its primary sponsors, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) � which would reform the campaign finance system and seek to reduce the influence of money in the electoral process.
The crux of the McCain-Feingold bill was a ban on soft money -- unlimited contributions to the national political parties for "party-building" activities. The bill also placed restrictions on outside groups airing so-called "issue ads" that tout or criticize a candidate's position on an issue, but refrain from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate.
After vigorous debate in the House and Senate, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold bill. President Bush signed the bill into law in March 2002, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law's major provisions in a December 2003 decision..
HOW IT MAY AFFECT YOU
During the debate over McCain-Feingold, supporters and opponents alike knew that a ban on soft money would have a significant impact on the campaign finance system. After all, the Democratic and Republican parties raised nearly half a billion dollars in soft money for the 2000 and 2002 elections. Because it could be given in unlimited amounts of $100,000, $250,000, or more, soft money allowed corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals to wield tremendous influence over the political process -- much more influence than the average voter.
With their generous contributions, soft money donors were doing more than supporting the democratic process. They were making an investment. Many of them were hoping that their contribution would pay off in the form of a policy decision or a bill endorsement at some later date. Supporters of reform say soft money made large contributors indispensable to the political parties and reduced the power of the broader electorate.
The parties used soft money to help pay for critical voter-registration campaigns, get-out-the-vote drives, and the all-important "issue ads". But donors didn't have to give their money to their party of choice to influence an election. They could spend it themselves -- or give it to an interest group to spend -- on "issue ads" of their own. Chances are, you've seen hundreds of these ads around election time. In competitive races, spending on issue ads can approach, or even exceed, spending by the candidates themselves.
The University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Public Policy Center and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have documented the dramatic rise in issue advocacy. In response to these concerns, the McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. Additionally, the legislation required groups spending more than $10,000 a year on TV ads to disclose who paid for them.
HOW THE INTEREST GROUPS SEE IT
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows, and campaign finance reform is no exception. An odd coalition of liberal groups, including the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union, and conservative groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Christian Coalition, fought the provision in McCain-Feingold prohibiting issue ads funded by outside groups in the final days of a campaign. They feel that the provision infringes on their rights to free speech and their ability to weigh in on elections.
Campaign finance reform groups including Common Cause, Democracy 21, Public Citizen, and the Brennan Center for Justice feel that the McCain-Feingold bill was necessary to salvage a political system in which the concerns of voters have been usurped by the money and influence of powerful industries and interest groups. Although none of the reform groups saw McCain-Feingold as a perfect bill, they were united in their belief that the bill is a necessary start down the road of campaign finance reform.
HOW IT ALL BEGAN
Congress in 1971 passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), a consolidation of previous reform efforts that limited the influence of wealthy individuals and special interests on the outcome of federal elections, regulated campaign spending, and mandated public disclosure of campaign finances by candidates and parties. Congress amended the FECA in 1974 in response to the Watergate scandal to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and political action committees (PACs). These amendments also established an independent agency � the Federal Election Commission (FEC) � to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure, and administer the public funding program of presidential campaigns. Congress made further amendments to the FECA in 1976, following the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo, and in 1979.
By most accounts, federal campaign finance laws have not achieved their desired goal of limiting the influence of well-funded special interests and deep-pocketed individuals on elections. Political parties and outside groups have taken advantage of loopholes in the law � soft money being among the biggest of them � in ways that reformers say have all but eviscerated the campaign finance system of its ability to control the flow of money.
THE MONEY
With most issues, a discussion of money would examine where the special interests stand on a given issue, and how they have used campaign contributions to bolster support among elected officials for their position. In the case of campaign finance reform, of course, money is the issue.
The Center prepared a report on the political parties' reliance on soft money prior to arguments about the McCain-Feingold law's constitutionality in the U.S. Supreme Court.
THE ISSUE IN CONGRESS AND THE COURTS
The McCain-Feingold bill passed the Senate and the House, and was signed into law by President Bush in March 2002. Read about the McCain-Feingold debate in our Tracking the Payback section.
Opponents of the bill challenged its constitutionality in court. Arguments were first heard before a special federal panel, which ruled some parts of the law unconstitutional. The panel then stayed its own ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court decided on the law. In December 2003, the Supreme Court upheld all of the law's major provisions.
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
