Campaign Finance - Coursework Example

 Campaign Finance Introduction How effective is campaign finance? Is it truly worth the expense? And what affect does it have on our national economy? What if I were to tell you the money spent is needless and wasteful, impacts our economy negatively, and that there are far cheaper methods to achieve the same desired effect in campaigns? You probably wouldn’t believe me, but it’s true. And here is why: Types of Campaign Finance Campaign Finance comes through many different avenues, from single-person donations to contributions from big and small corporations and political special-interest groups. These days it’s impossible to run for any position without money for travel, ads, and “get-out-the-vote” campaigns. The only way someone without the financial clout of Ross Perot can go toe-to-toe with the “big boys” is by joining one of the two main parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. Without the reach, both financially and politically, of these two parties the odds are squarely against you. True, the occasional “independent” might win a seat on congress, but how many independents do you know that won a seat who weren’t former members of one of the parties? So, the first step in financing a campaign is joining a party—unless, of course, you’re Ross Perot. But even he ended up getting squashed in the end through other, more political, methods. Campaign finance is categorized in two ways: “hard money” and “soft money”. Hard money is “donations made directly to political candidates.” (Wikipedia: “Campaign Finance in the United States”, paragraph 2) These direct donations come from organizations, individuals, and (you guessed it) the political parties. “Soft” money is money that isn’t received or spent by the candidate’s campaign but spent by individuals/organizations for political advertisements (often made by said individual/organization) for a favored candidate’s position or attacks on his opponents. More or less, “hard” money is donated to a campaign for the candidate to spend while “soft” money isn’t donated, just spent. There’s a fine line between the two that has more to do with semantics than the action, itself. While there’s a limit on how much “hard” money can be sent to a candidate, there is no limit on how much “soft” money his political allies can volunteer to spend on his behalf. There is a limit on the type of “soft” money ads that can be legally put out. In short, the ads are “information only”, positive or negative depending on which candidate the ad is attempting to support. This also includes ads that compare the different candidates. It is illegal for 527 ads to use the words “vote for”, “don’t vote for”, “elect”, “don’t elect”, etc. They can only suggest doing so in an indirect manner (“so-and-so is honorable, but this man isn’t”). Beyond that, 527s are basically free to put whatever they want out even if it’s a flat out lie (but I’m sure they can be sued for Slander if the lie can be proven to be a lie). Hard Money on the Rise All this obviously makes “hard” money easier to trace and regulate than “soft” money. But even with limits on “Hard” money donations, the amount of money that can be spent during an election is mind-boggling. In the 2004 Presidential Election (R) George W. Bush’s campaign received $367,228,801, (D) John Kerry’s $326,236,288, (I) Ralph Nader’s $4,566,037, and (L) Michael Badnarik $1,093,013 (“2004 Presidential Election”). In total, $880.5 million dollars was donated in 2004 compared to $528.9 million in 2000. And the trend shows that the money for campaigns will only rise higher. Obviously, corporations, unions, lobbyists and other special interest groups have a way around the donation limits, a legal “loop-hole” per se. These are called Party Activity Committees or PACs. “Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) may make unlimited "independent expenditures" in connection with federal elections.” (Wikipedia: “Campaign Finance in the United States”, paragraph 10). This is how it works. Let’s say a union wants to donate to the candidate of their choice. Now, the union, itself can’t donate. But, set up a PAC to allow “independent expenditures” of individuals, then each individual entity can donate up to $1000 dollars each. Now most of these individuals will only donate $5, $10, or $100; but when you have several hundred or (in the case of a very large union) several thousand people donate, you can see how it can add up. Of course, most special interest groups will only set up a PAC for their favored candidate. Any individuals who would rather donate to the other candidate will have to find somewhere else to donate the money. Also, “they must provide the names, occupations, employers and addresses of all individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle.” (Wikipedia: “Campaign Finance in the United States”, paragraph 7) But only those whose donations are $200 or more. Party committes may contribute directly to a candidate’s funds up to the contribution limits. But they can also spend up to $10,000 in “soft” money for generic voter registration and “get-out-the-vote” efforts. So, the biggest advantage to being a part of a political party has less to do with money and more to do with exposure and political clout. Most people tend to have a “better the devil you know” attitude when it comes to political campaigns, thus they tend to donate to and vote for the Democrats and Republicans far more than to the lesser parties and independents. Soft Money and 527s Despite numerous efforts to regulate and limit campaign finance—at least 9 attempts from 1867 to date (“The Federal Election Campaign Laws: A Short History”)—new loop holes continue to pop up. The most recent loop hole is the 527. Moveon.org is the most infamous 527. Funded by multibillionaire philanthropist George Soros and Chairman of Progressive Corp. Peter Lewis, Moveon.org created 20 TV, print, and radio “soft” money ads during the 2004 campaign with a total combined cost of over $13 million minimum, and quite possibly a lot more (MoveOn.org, 2004 Election Cycle). All 20 gave a negative position toward George W. Bush, and only one said anything positive about John Kerry. Of course, this list doesn’t include the ad that ran on their website before getting pulled: the one that compared Bush to Hitler. Another 527 is America Coming Together, the top spender among 527s during 2004. They, alone, spent over $78 million dollars in “soft” money. Two of their top donators were, of course, George Soros and Peter Lewis, for $10 million each. And $8 million was pledged from labor groups, including the SEIU. Indeed the top four of the top spenders were in favor of the Democratic Party while the highest spender for the Republican side came in at #5 for $35.6 million. The Democratic Party was the “top dog” in regards to “soft” money spending, and yet we all know how the 2004 elections turned out. In 2004, the top 50 527s spent a combined total of $504.5 million (527 Committee Activity: Top 50 Federally Focused Organizations). That’s almost as much as what Bush and Kerry both received in “hard” money donations combined, and the total is only from the top 50 527s. There are hundreds out there. The total amount of money, both “hard” and “soft”, for the 2004 campaign was well over 1.3 trillion dollars, enough to cover the national deficit and create a federal surplus! Now add the fact that campaign contributions and 527s are tax exempt, and that the vast majority of 527s are ideologically based. Not a pretty picture. Economic Effects So, what is all this money spent for? Well, ads mostly. So TV, radio, newspapers, and the like see the lion’s share of this money, especially from 527s. “Hard” money is primarily spent for ads as well, but also for travel expenses, food, banquets, hotel stays, security, to pay staff—all the things necessary to run a campaign. “Hard” money gets spread out to a lot more areas than “soft” money does; therefore, “hard” money benefits the economy more than “soft” money ever could. And yet it’s the “hard” money that gets limited with regulations while 527s and other “soft” money venues are unlimited? Special interest at its finest. Finance Reform Campaign finance reform continues apace. On May 3, 2006, the “House of Representatives passed the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, HR 4975” (Political Money Line: “House Passes Lobby Reform Legislation”). While it does not limit spending, it does give more federal regulations. As if that hadn’t already been tried dozens of times already. On Dec. 1, 2005, Connecticut started what is called the “Clean Money, Clean Elections” approach (“How Clean Money, Clean Elections Campaign Reform Works”). Basically, candidates are “rewarded”, if they fulfill certain clean money requirements. Politicians being what they are, it’s probably the best approach yet. But, of course, legislature to eliminate 527s continues to lag in the Senate. And as long as 527s are allowed to continue, special interest will still have some affect on political decisions, even if the affect is “minimal”. The Internet, Leveling the Playing Fied? The first time the internet created a substantial impact on campaigns was 2004, and its usefulness has only increased exponentially since then. Why spend vast gobs of money when personal web hosting comes free with your internet service? And even websites with their own domain names are cheap enough for the average person to own. E-mail newsletters can be done for free. There is no way of knowing how effective the internet truly is on campaigns since any expenditure under $200 doesn’t have to be reported to the FEC, but anyone with online access can get a good feel of how much the internet is getting used on the political level. “The surging number of campaign contributors in 2004, especially the small donors who gave online, changed the character of one of the most important constituencies in U.S. politics, the people who finance presidential elections.” (Edsall, paragraph 5) As the usefulness of the internet increases, one can only hope the astronomical expenditures for campaigns will finally decrease, especially since there is no scientific evidence that proves the cliché “whoever spends the most wins.” Charisma, persuasiveness, and the ability to get the information out to the most number of people determine who wins. “No such study has ever found more than only modest effects of campaign spending on the prospects of candidates.”(Milyo, pg. 3) And if you can do so without having to spend billions or even millions, then the playing field becomes more level. Just as the internet gave small businesses the opportunity to compete with the “big dogs”, then perhaps it will give the same opportunity for the lesser parties and independents. Only time will tell. “2004 Presidential Elections”. Opensecrets.org. n.d. Center for Responsive Politics. May 5, 2006. “527 Committee Activity: Top 50 Federally Focused Organizations”. Opensecrets.org. May 1, 2006. Center for Responsive Politics. May 5, 2006. “Campaign Finance in the United States”. Wikipedia. April 19, 2006. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. May 5, 2006. Edsall, Thomas B. “Rise in Online Fundraising Changed Face of Campaign Donors”. Washingtonpost.com. March 6, 2006. The Washington Post Company. May 5, 2006. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500816.html> “The Federal Election Campaign Laws: A short History”. Fec.gov. n.d. Federal Election Commission. May 5, 2006. < http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm> “House Passes Lobby Reform Legislation”. Political Money Line. May 3, 2006. Tray Cooper and Tony Raymond. May 5, 2006. “How Clean Money, Clean elections Reform Works”. Public Campaign. n.d. Public Campaign. May 5, 2006. “Moveon.org 2004 Election Cycle”. Opensecrets.org. n.d. The Center for responsive Politics. May 5, 2006. Milyo, Jeffrey. “What does Academic research Tell us About the Role of Money in American Politics?” Fed-soc.org. (n.d.): 3. The Federalist Society. May 5, 2006. “Public Funding of Presedential Elections”. Fec.gov. February, 2005. Federal Election Commission. May 5, 2006. < http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml> Read More