1. Unit 2: Pol. Beliefs, Behaviors & Unit 4: Institutions
Campaign Finance
Unit 2: Pol. Beliefs, Behaviors
& Unit 4: Institutions

2. Campaign Finance A visual for you to process:
Since candidates need $ to run campaigns and get elected…
What should be the relationship between $ and candidates?
Seth Meyers- A Close Look

3. Debrief of Seth Meyers Closer Look
Take 2 mins to debrief with your partner about Seth Meyers video:
Items to discuss:
What is your overall reaction to the amounts of $ involved?
Brainstorm the impact of this $ on elections and voters

4. The Context For Campaign Finance Reform
Since there can be so much potential for corruption with so much money involved…
There have been efforts to control the effects of $ on elections
Starting in the 1970s- Campaign Finance Reform laws have been written to attempt to change the way money flows in elections

5. How Money Flows Into Elections
There are TWO ways $ can get into the hands of a candidate:
Individual voter gives money directly
But…that is going to be smaller amounts and you need LOTS of people donating
2. Groups: Corporations, unions, Organizations (NRA) that all have an interest at stake, right? Interest Groups
The Development of PACs

6. Federal Election Campaign Acts,
: disclosure, subsidies, limitations.

7. Established a Fed. Elections Commissions (FEC) to regulate fed
Established a Fed. Elections Commissions (FEC) to regulate fed. Elections.
All candidates must disclose contributions and expenditures.
Presidential candidates can receive Fed. subsidies on a matching fund basis (money comes from tax check-offs). In ’96, Clinton and Dole each received $61 million.

8. Presidential candidates who receive fed
Presidential candidates who receive fed. money are subjected to spending limitations. If they do not take the money (Bush in 2004 primaries), they are not subjected to spending limitations.
Contribution Limitations Individuals: $1000 per candidate & election PACS: $5000 per candidate & elections, no overall cap

9. Effect of Buckley v. Valeo (1976) on FECA:
Question in case
DECISION & IMPACT
Did the limits placed on electoral expenditures (spending) by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech and association clauses?
1. Court upheld (supported) limits on campaign contributions
2. Court struck down (denied) limits on congressional campaign spending. 1st Amendment protects spending as a form of expression. (Limits still OK for Presidential races because the fed. Govt. subsidizes them)

10. II. Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold Bill)

11. A. Bans soft money donations to national political parties
A. Bans soft money donations to national political parties. Soft money; undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for party building activities.
B. Limits soft money donations to state political parties to $10,000 restricts use of these donations to voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives

12. Doubled individuals “hard money” donations to 2000, and indexes future increases to inflation (now $2300 for election cycle). Hard money: disclosed, limited donations to candidates.
No change on PAC limits
Unions and corporations banned from giving soft money to parties

13. Analysis

14. No subsidies for congressional campaigns  further incumbency advantage.
B. No limits on spending in congressional races (these were overturned in Buckley v. Valeo, 1976)
1. Massive spending on congressional races and further incumbency advantage.
2. Members of Congress spend great amounts of time with fund-raising projects.
3. Late-starters are discouraged

15. No limitations on independent expenditures, i. e
No limitations on independent expenditures, i.e., money not donated to party or candidate but rather spent on behalf of a candidate. “527s”, tax exempt groups engaged in pol. activities- unlimited contributions- can spend on voter mobilization and issue ads slamming or praising candidates- (cannot officially endorse a candidate)

16. Minor pres. candidates can’t get subsidies before election unless party received at least 5% of popular vote in last election
Parties weakened since pres. election funds go to candidates not parties  rise of candidates centered campaigns vs. party centered campaigns

17. Growth of PACs and candidate dependence on PACs
Cost of campaigning has risen  more time spent on fundraising by candidates

18. The Changing Landscape 2010:Citizes United v. FEC
The details of this case will be reviewed in the next session- these are the basics:
Were the restrictions in BCRA of 2002 on campaign contributions, spending, & disclosure constitutional? (a question of free speech)
Decision: No they were not- thus allowing corporations and unions unlimited spending and no disclosure (free speech)

19. Lecture DQs
Explain two of the provisions under the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002
Discuss 2 points regarding the overall analysis of campaign finance reform movement.