 Presidential Primaries  Part private, part public money Federal matching funds for all individuals’ donations of $250 or less (incentive to raise money from small donors) Governmental lump-sum grants to parties to help pay convention costs

 Presidential General Elections  All public money (usually) Nominee eligible for $20 million + the cost of living adjustment, and can spend $50,000 of his/her own personal funds (about 85 million available for each candidate in 2008 election) Barack Obama the first major candidate to drop out of the modern campaign financing system since its creation in 1976 (essentially had no spending limits)

 Congressional Elections  Mostly private money $2000 maximum for individual donors $5000 limits for PACs Oooo….Pretty! PACS tend to view funds as a way to get access to candidates. -give bulk of $ to incumbents or candidates with no opposition. -give $ to democrats and republicans in congress since no way to predict who will have majority next

 Watergate brought about the 1973 federal campaign reform law and the creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC)

 Limit individual donations to $1000 per candidate per elections  Reaffirmed ban on corporate and union donations in place since 1925  Allowed for creation of PACs to raise money for corporations, unions, etc.  Need at least 50 voluntary members  Have to give to at least 5 federal candidates  Limited to giving $5000 per election per candidate, or no more than $15,000 per year to any political party  Created public funding for presidential campaigns

 Challenged in the Supreme Court as a First Amendment violation, but mostly upheld in Buckley v. Valeo  Independent expenditures  An organization or PAC can spend as much as it wishes on advertising, so long as it is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.  Soft money  Unlimited amounts of $ may be given to a political party, so long as a candidate is not named; this $ can then be spent to help candidate with voting drives, etc.

 Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and association clauses?  NO: limits on contributions to campaigns and candidates guards against corruption; doesn’t violate 1 st amendment.  YES: limits on a candidate’s spending from personal accounts does violate 1 st amendment; practice doesn’t prevent corruption and doesn’t serve a great enough government interest to curtail free speech.

 Following 2000 election, there was a desire to reform finance law  Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain- Feingold Law)  Banned soft money contributions  Raised limit on individual donations to $2000 per candidate per election  Restricted independent expenditures  “Stand by your ad” provision  Can’t use own $ to refer to a clearly identifiable candidate during 60 days before general election or 30 days before primary election

 Challenged in court as restriction of free speech, but Supreme Court upheld almost the entire law (McConnell v. Federal Election Commission)  527 Organizations  Can spend money on politics as long as they do not coordinate with a candidate or lobby directly for that person  Essentially the same effect as soft money

 Partially overturned McConnell v. FEC  McCain-Feingold law can’t restrict issue ads in months preceding an election, BUT it still must be an issue ad

 Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie.  The Movie expressed opinions about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.   By a 5-to-4 vote, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.

 1973 Watergate Scandal  1973 creation of Federal Election Commission (FEC)  1973 Reform Law (1000 per individual donor, corporate and union donation ban, creation of PACs, independent expenditures and soft money regulations)  1976 Buckley v Valeo (contribution limits ok, personal spending limits not ok)  2002 McCain-Feingold Law (banned soft money, raised limit to 2000 per individual donor, restricted independent expenditures, “stand by your ad”)  2003 McConnell v FEC (challenged McCain-Feingold Law (BCRA) but lost)  2007 FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life (can’t restrict personal spending before an election, but must be issue ad)  2010 Citizens United (Challenged the BCRA and won—cannot limit corporate funding. Corporations are people too!

 U9I8 U9I8  Does money corrupt politics?  Should corporations get to influence elections?  “You give a million dollars towards my campaign, I will do you a favor once I am in office…”  YOUR OPINIONS????

1. Presidential candidates have similar funds because of federal funding 2. During peacetime, presidential elections are usually decided on the basis of: a. Political party affiliation b. The state of the economy --“pocketbook voting” c. Character 3. Other factors whose influence on the presidential campaign is usually overstated: a. Vice presidential nominee b. Political reporting c. Religion of the candidate d. Abortion as a single issue 4. Congressional races – money has a decisive effect a. Challenger must spend to be recognized b. Big spending incumbents also do better and higher spending has become the norm 5. Advantages of incumbency in fundraising