Inside The Campaign Finance Battle

In 2002 Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the first major revision of federal campaign finance law in a generation. In March 2001, after a fiercely contested and highly divisive seven-year partisan legislative battle, the Senate passed S. 27, known as the McCain-Feingold legislation. The House responded by passing H.R. 2356, companion legislation known as Shays-Meehan, in February 2002. The Senate then approved the House-passed version, and President George W. Bush signed BCRA into law on March 27, 2002, stating that the bill had "flaws" but overall "improves the current system of financing for federal campaigns." The Reform Act was taken to court within hours of the President's signature. Dozens of interest groups and lawmakers who had opposed passage of the Act in Congress lodged complaints that challenged the constitutionality of virtually every aspect of the new law. Following review by a special three-judge panel, the case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. This litigation constitutes the most important campaign finance case since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Buckley v. Valeo more than twenty-five years ago. The testimony, submitted by some of the country's most knowledgeable political scientists and most experienced politicians, constitutes an invaluable body of knowledge about the complexities of campaign finance and the role of money in our political system. Unfortunately, only the lawyers, political scientists, and practitioners actually involved in the litigation have seen most of this writing—until now. Ins ide the Campaign Finance Battle makes key testimony in this historic case available to a general readership, in the process shedding new light on campaign finance practices central to the congressional debate on the reform act and to the landmark litigation challenging its constitutionality.

The issues surrounding money in American elections are continually controversial. How much does money affect the outcome of elections? Do those who help finance candidates exert undue influence in the making of public policy? In this landmark book, one of America's most distinguished political scientists explores the dynamics and consequences of campaign finance in America and explodes many myths about this widely debated subject. Frank J. Sorauf provides balanced and informative commentary on such critical issues in campaign financing as: - the growing problems of regulating American campaign finance under the post-Watergate legislation of 1974; - the forces that affect the supply of money available for campaigning, from economic conditions to the competitiveness of elections; - the increasing power of incumbent candidates in the two-way exchange between candidates and contributors; - political learning and the search for ways to avoid the laws on campaign finance; - the myths and realities about the role and influence of PACs; - the vanishing funds for public funding of the presidential campaigns; - the new middlemen and brokers (e.g., the case of Charles Keating); - the major options for reform: private versus public funding; - the political deadlock over reform: parties, public opinion, and the interests of incumbents; - the possibility of new levels of competition and spending in 1992. Sorauf argues that the American system of campaign financing has become increasingly stable and institutionalized during the last sixteen years, and that the major players in the system--PACs, individual fund-raisers, party committees, and incumbent candidates--now behave in fairly predictable ways. His book is a fresh and persuasive account of the importance and the limits of money as a base of political influence in the United States.

Just in time for the coming election year, this book looks at the changing of the guard in 2006 and speculates on where the system may be heading in 2008. It provides an in-depth examination of the ways in which candidates, interest groups, and parties perceived their opportunities and allocated their campaign resources during the midterm elections. The role of money, which was influenced by campaign finance reform, is a special focus in this book. The theme of political scandal has frequently raised concerns that Republican leadership had become a "culture of corruption" that had flourished under their watch, which is also addressed in this book. The war in Iraq, however, may be the most important factor-not only in the 2006 battle for Congress, but for the 2008 battle for the White House as well.

Interest groups shape tactics in response to restrictions on campaign activities

Introduces citizens to solutions for reforming the American campaign finance system.

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."

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.