Political Finance Reforms

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.

Money is a necessary component of any democracy: it enables political participation, campaigning and representation. However, if it is not effectively regulated, it can undermine the integrity of political processes and institutions, and jeopardize the quality of democracy. Therefore, regulations related to the funding of political parties and election campaigns, commonly known as political finance, are a critical way to promote integrity, transparency and accountability in any democracy. Political finance regulations must adapt and adjust to political, economic and societal changes. This report contributes to the discussion of the future of political finance by exploring the following trends, opportunities and challenges related to money in politics that need to be taken into consideration when improving political finance systems: · mainstreaming political finance regulations into an overall anti-corruption framework; · supporting the implementation of existing political finance regulations and monitoring their performance; · harnessing digital technologies to ensure transparency and accountability in political finance; and · designing targeted political finance measures to encourage the inclusion of underrepresented groups in politics.

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.

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.

!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN" meta name="generator" content="HTML Tidy, see www.w3.org" In 2004, Jean Chrétien’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.

Interest groups shape tactics in response to restrictions on campaign activities

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.