Campaign Finance Research Paper

The Need for Campaign Finance Money is such a devilish thing. Money can be a very helpful tool to improve one’s life but in certain hands, can limit the right and beliefs of others. This idea is quite evident in the American political arena. Campaigns for various offices are at the mercy of money. A candidate’s chance at being elected to office typically hinges on his or her ability to be noticed through ads, billboards, tv time, social media or any other similar method. Most of these methods require large amounts of money in order to be effective. As this fact becomes more and more evident with each passing campaign, even larger amounts of cash are injected into future campaigns. Campaign finance reform is needed not only due to larger amounts of cash coming into play. Rather campaign finance reform is needed because current laws are not consistent with public preference, current campaign finance practices create dangerous possibilities, and if left unreformed, current finance practices will continue to impede the rights and beliefs of citizens and diminish the strength of American democracy. The simplest argument that can be made for campaign finance reform is the fact that current law is inconsistent with public opinion. Most laws draw some form of ire from one side or another. However, it is rare when both sides agree
that a law is a hindrance. Both major political parties in the United States wish to change campaign finance in one way or another. Democrats argue that laws that, “…would require additional disclosure of corporate spending in federal campaigns,” (Jost 2010) are necessary in order to properly inform voters about what they are voting for. This transparency would also allow voters to question why certain corporations are supporting various propositions. Meanwhile, Republicans have attempted to repeal some parts of current campaign finance structures, like those on soft money, by stating that certain limitations on “soft money is likely unconstitutional,” (Jost 2002). Bans on soft money can also hurt newer candidates that typically lack the support of large corporations and have an uphill struggle against incumbents. Although there are differing opinions, neither side is content with current campaign finance structure. The American general populace also supports campaign finance reform. Most of the American public agree that the current system is outdated and, “has not kept pace with campaign costs but also because the money isn't available early enough,” (Billiteri 2008). Which is quite true. Most would agree that 5 cents can’t buy now what it could have bought in 1906. This idea is true for campaign finance. Every economy is at the mercy of inflation. This fact helps make current law outdated. “Currently, “4 in 5 Americans oppose the ruling in the Citizen’s United vs FEC,” (Price 2016). Not only does the populace oppose that ruling, which gives corporations power to spend unlimited amounts on campaigns, but they also were likely to experience apathy. This, “already may be happening, according to the Center for Responsive Politics…” (Price 2016) which is unquestionably detrimental to American society. This detrimental response can help establish a dangerous environment in the American government. Current campaign finance structure can create dangerous conditions in the United States. If campaign finance reform is not accomplished, change can be impeded. As mentioned earlier, “apathy already may be happening, according to the Center for Responsive Politics…” Price (2016). Apathy is dangerous in many ways. If the American public fails to believe that voting can change anything, then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the American public becomes more apathetic and fails to vote on key legislation, things will not change. Change regarding environmental concerns are already necessary. Yet little has been done. This is quite evident in the case of global warming. Already, the incoming generation of American voters, have a very negative outlook on American politics. According to Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, just 19.9 percent voted in various 2014 campaigns. With such a low voter turnout, it is no wonder why change can’t be achieved. Campaign finance reform is also needed due to a lack of transparency. This lack of transparency could create an environment in which, “foreign companies could pour money into campaigns and “help choose our government,” (Price 2016). The dangers of allowing such a thing to occur need no explanation. Foreign governments will not have the interest of the American populace in mind. Campaign finance reform can help counter-act these dangerous impacts. Due to the Mccain-Feingold law, “candidates are turning more than ever before to grassroots donors making small contributions,” (Billiiteri 2008). This can help encourage voters to go out, vote, and alleviate apathy. Similar changes may also help prevent foreign interest from donating to American campaigns. However, it must be stated, that it is difficult to enforce such a thing. Stricter campaign finance laws may help prevent foreign intrusion. However, the real dangers lie at home in the form of oppression of citizen’s rights. Campaign finance reform is necessary because current structure can limit the rights and beliefs of citizens. With current campaign finance structure very few people can influence entire elections and suppress other’s rights. This was obvious in 1998 when those making, “$100,000 in annual income comprised three-quarters of the large, individual donors in the 1998,” (Cooper 2000). Although they only made up a measly 6 percent of the population, it can be argued they influenced a large election. Admittedly, this is an old example. However, things haven’t changed. According to Price, “During the 2014 cycle, 100 individuals spent more on elections than the 4.75 million Americans…” (Price 2016). That is a very concerning fact. Essentially, 100 individuals are able to influence a nation of 322 million people. Not only does this not fit the definition of a democracy but it also suppresses the rights and beliefs of hundreds of millions of people. With the increasing cost of campaigns, candidates affected also. They must now spend the majority of their time trying to garner enough cash to pose a fight. A fight which already gives the incumbent the advantage. Again, another example of suppressing a citizen’s right for representation. Another example of rights being infringed upon those rights of gay citizens. Early in the 2000’s, the NRA used influence gained from campaign contribution to support a law the, “ACLU says the law would have prevented it from running an ad earlier this year calling on House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to permit a vote on a federal gay-rights bill right before his primary election,” (Jost 2002). Although campaign finance reform merely deals with balancing influence, reform would have far reaching consequences. In conclusion, campaign finance reform is necessary because currently it does not reflect the opinion of the American public.
This is evident from their apathy, their disagreement with current law, and their outcry against outdated laws. Further lack of reform would could cause dangerous political environments in the U.S. Current financial structure allows for a lack of transparency, which could lead to foreign influence, and apathy among U.S voters. Finally, the greatest danger lies at home by placing most of the influence in the hands of a few. These hand can pose a threat to the rights of other citizens and restrict their
representation.

Works Cited
Billitteri, T. J. (2008, June 13). Campaign finance reform. CQ Researcher, 18, 505-528. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/
Cooper, M. H. (2000, March 31). Campaign finance reform. CQ Researcher, 10, 257-280. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/
Jost, K. (2002, November 22). Campaign finance showdown. CQ Researcher, 12, 969-992. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/
Jost, K. (2010, May 28). Campaign finance debates. CQ Researcher, 20, 457-480. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/
Price, T. (2016, May 6). Campaign finance. CQ researcher, 26, 409-432. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/