Jan 02, 2016
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 ElectionsAll public money (usually)
Nominee eligible for up to $74.4 million + the cost of living adjustment, and can spend $50,000 of his/her own personal funds
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 ElectionsMostly 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. (have access, but don’t “own them” because of small donation amounts)-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)
Soft Moneyunregulated contributions to national political
parties funds spent by independent organizations that
do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates
funds which are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns.
Hard Moneycontributed directly to a candidate of a
political partyregulated by law in both source and amountmonitored by the Federal Election
Commission.
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 membersHave 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 1st amendment.
YES: limits on a candidate’s spending from personal accounts does violate 1st 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 the finance law
2002 - Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold Law)Banned soft money
contributionsRaised 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 (…but)
Challenged in court as restriction of free speech, but Supreme Court upheld almost the entire law (McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 2003)
527 Organizations (named after IRS code)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 Ads can’t explicitly or expressly advocate the election or defeat
of a candidate Ex. "Vote for Smith," "Elect Smith," "Vote Against Doe," or "Defeat
Doe"), but they Can use the names of candidates Ex. "Bill Smith is an honest man who stands up for the people;
John Doe is a chronic liar who's taken money from special interests and advocated cutting Social Security. Call John Doe and tell him how you feel about this
Buckley v. Valeo (1976) limits on donations was constitutional (to keep out corruption), but expenditures made independently of a candidate's campaign could not be limited (free speech). If expenditures are made in "coordination" with a campaign, however, they may be regulated as contributions.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)- upheld BCRA ban on soft money and limit of electioneering ads 30/60 days before an election. (Partially overturned by case below)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007) organizations engaged in genuine discussion of issues were entitled to a broad, "as applied" exemption from the electioneering communications provisions of BCRA
Citizens United v. FEC (2010) corporations and labor unions can use funds from their general treasuries to run ads for candidates in national elections.
Individual limits:$2500 to federal candidate$30,800 to national party$5000 to PAC
Total limits in 2010-11$46,200 limit to all fed candidates$70,800 to all PACs and parties
Shaun McCutcheon wanted to contribute more claiming 1st amend. violation.
The Supreme Court agreed!!Decision does not change individual limits, it
just gets rid of the total limit.
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 nomineeb. Political reporting c. Religion of the candidated. Abortion as a single issue
4. Congressional races – money has a decisive effect
a. Challenger must spend to be recognizedb. Big spending incumbents also do better
and higher spending has become the norm 5. Advantages of incumbency in fundraising