1. Campaign Finance Objective: To better understand campaign finance and its influence on political campaigns November 13, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/politics/campaign-finance/

2. I. Federal Election Campaign Acts, 1971-1974 1.Established FEC-regulate elections 2.Candidates-disclose?? 1.Must disclose contributions $ expenditures 3.Pres. candidates-receive fed. Subsidies (tax check-offs) 4.Accept fed. Money=spending limitations… 5.$84 million in 2008 general election (McCain excepted/Obama did not – first major candidate to not accept) 1.Must raise at least $5,000 in 20 states

3. I. FECA 1971, 1974… Contribution limitations: –$1000 per candidate, per election –PACs: $5000 per candidate, per election, no overall cap II. Effects of Buckley v. Valeo (1976) –Court upheld limits on campaign contributions –Courts struck down limits on the amount individuals could contribute to their own campaigns(1 st amendment-free spend) –Perot-$60 million 1992 –Romney-$44 million 2008

4. III. Campaign Reform Act, 2002 (McCain- Feingold Bill/BRCA) Regulates soft money to NATIONAL political parties (Soft $=???) –Soft Money =undisclosed, unlimited donations to parties for party building activities (Now all money to the parties is regulated and capped by the FEC) Limits soft $ to STATE political parties-$10,000 (restricted to): –Voter registration, get out the vote drives Doubles “hard money” to $2000 (goes up with inflation-$2600 in 2013/14) –Hard Money =disclosed, limited donations to candidates No change on PAC limits ($5,000)

5. IV. Citizens United v. FEC, 2010 BRCA  banned corps/unions from “electioneering communications” –60 days of gen. election and 30 days of primary (unions/corps.) SCOTUS ruled: –Allowed corps/unions to air ads explicitly supporting or opposing a federal candidate (ISSUE ADVOCACY ADS WERE BANNED FROM DOING THIS PRIOR) –Eliminated the bans on electioneering communications –Kept rule that bans corps/unions from donating directly to candidates –Can say vote for or against THEREFORE…SUPERPACS http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-17-2012/colbert- super-pac---not-coordinating-with-stephen-colbert http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/stephen-colberts-super- pac-ad-mitt-ripper-15371195

6. V. Analysis 1.No subsidies for congressional campaigns  incumbency advantage 2.Minor parties  5% of pop. Vote in previous election in order to receive subsidies 3.Parties are weakened even more  Candidate centered campaign vs. party centered campaign ($ goes to candidate) 4.Growth of PACs and candidate dependency 5.Cost of campaigning has risen (MEDIA – 250,000 to over 3 million for Super Bowl) More time spent fundraising

7. V. Analysis 6.No limitations on independent expenditures 7.“527s”  engage in political activities, receive unlimited contributions, spent on voter mobilization and issue advocacy ads, no money to candidate (CANNOT SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phqOuEhg9yE 8.PACS  engage in political activities, contributions to candidates are limited, can be given to candidate (Realtors PAC), report to FEC (CAN SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST) 9.SUPERPACS  engage in political activities, contributions cannot go to a candidate, contributions from individuals are unlimited, report to FEC, (CAN SAY VOTE FOR OR AGAINST) http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249055/september-15-2009/the- word---let-freedom-ka-ching