Campaign Finance Reform

Interest groups shape tactics in response to restrictions on campaign activities

At first glance, campaign finance reform looks like a good idea. McCain-Feingold, for instance, regulates campaigns by prohibiting national political parties from accepting soft money contributions from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. But are such measures, or any of the numerous and similarly restrictive proposals that have circulated through Washington in recent years, really good for our democracy? John Samples says no, and here he takes a penetrating look into the premises and consequences of the long crusade against big money in politics. How many Americans, he asks, know that there is little to no evidence that campaign contributions really influence members of Congress? Or that so-called negative political advertising actually improves the democratic process by increasing voter turnout and knowledge? Or that limits on campaign contributions make it harder to run for office, thereby protecting incumbent representatives from losing their seats of power? Posing tough questions such as these, Samples uncovers numerous fallacies beneath proposals for campaign finance reform. He argues that our most common concerns about money in politics are misplaced because the ideals implicit in our notion of corruption are incoherent or indefensible. The chance to regulate money in politics allows representatives to serve their own interests at a cost to their constituents. And, ironically, this long crusade against the corruption caused by campaign contributions allows public officials to reduce their vulnerability by suppressing electoral competition. Defying long-held ssumptions and conventional political wisdom, The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform is a provocative and decidedly nonpartisan work that will be essential for anyone concerned about the future of American government.

In 2004, Jean Chrtien's Liberals banned corporations and unions from contributing financially to political parties. In 2008, opposition leaders were prepared to defeat the Conservative Party over its proposal to eliminate public subsidies to parties. In this book, prominent political scientists explore the underlying issues that led to the showdown. Are publicly funded parties compatible with democracy? What effects has party finance reform had on elections and on the balance of power between parties and donors and between national parties and local organizations? Contributors show that campaign finance reforms have shaped party organization and electoral competition, contributing to successive minority governments.

In 2004, Jean Chrtien's Liberals banned corporations and unions from contributing financially to political parties. In 2008, opposition leaders were prepared to defeat the Conservative Party over its proposal to eliminate public subsidies to parties. In this book, prominent political scientists explore the underlying issues that led to the showdown. Are publicly funded parties compatible with democracy? What effects has party finance reform had on elections and on the balance of power between parties and donors and between national parties and local organizations? Contributors show that campaign finance reforms have shaped party organization and electoral competition, contributing to successive minority governments.

Have campaign finance reform laws actually worked? Is money less influential in electing candidates today than it was thirty years ago when legislation was first enacted? Absolutely not, argues Rodney A. Smith in this passionately written, fact-filled, and provocative book. According to Smith, the laws have had exactly the opposite of their intended effect. They have increased the likelihood that incumbents in the House and Senate will be reelected, and they have greatly diminished the chances that candidates who are not wealthy will be elected. Smith's claims are supported by convincing data; he collected and analyzed information about all federal elections since 1920. These data show clearly that money matters now more than ever. Smith thinks that reform legislation has created a new inequality for candidates that, if left unchecked, threatens to destroy the American electoral process by obliterating the foundational principle of free speech. He argues that "money buys speech" and when candidates lack money to buy media time and space they are effectively silenced. Their inability to "speak freely" violates the most significant intentions of our nation's founders: that a sovereign citizenry elect its own leaders based on a free exchange of ideas. For Smith, campaign finance reform has unwittingly unbalanced the checks and balances created by the Framers of the Constitution. After presenting a detailed historical overview of how we have reached the present crisis, Smith proposes a simple solution: institute a process that completely discloses relevant information about campaign donors and recipients of donations. All disclosures would be available to the media, which would be able to investigate and report them fully. Only then, Smith believes, will the United States have the opportunity to be the democratic republic that its founders intended.

"Campaign finance reform has always been motivated by a definition of democracy that does not count corporations as citizens and holds that self-government works best by reducing political inequality. In the early years of the twentieth century, Congress recognized the strength of these principles by prohibiting corporations from making campaign contributions, passing a disclosure law, and setting limits on campaign expenditures. These reforms were not controversial at the time, but conservative opposition to them appeared in the 1970s. That opposition was well represented in the Supreme Court, which has rolled back reform by granting First Amendment rights to corporations and declaring the goal of reducing political inequality to be unconstitutional. Buying the Vote analyzes the rise and decline of campaign finance reform by tracking changes in the way presidential campaigns have been funded since the late nineteenth century, and changes in the debate over how to reform fundraising practices. A close examination of major Supreme Court decisions shows how the Court has fashioned a new and profoundly inegalitarian redefinition of American democracy"--

All democracies face the dilemma of how to pay for politics. Money fuels the campaigns that inform and mobilize voters. But private political contributions raise the specter of undue influence, or, worse, political corruption. This book reviews the history of America's efforts at federal campaign finance reform.

Is campaign finance reform dead or alive? Can Congress really fix the problems that American voters perceive in their electoral system? This book assumes that voters are the end users of campaign finance reform, and it questions whether average citizens really know what they are asking for or what they may get when they demand change. In this book, ten prominent political scientists and commentators challenge the conventional wisdom about the role of money in campaigns and elections. They look at the level of campaign spending in recent times, the judicial perspective on spending as a First Amendment right, the current diversity of donors, the media spin on the subject, and the act of contributing as a form of political participation. The inimitable Norm Ornstein wraps it all up with a model reform proposal that is at once more moderate than McCain-Feingold and yet radical in its own way. Published under the auspices of Berkeley Public Policy Press."