Essay On Campaign Spending

Campaign Spending
One interesting part of campaign finance is that there's no limit on what a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. Wealthy presidential hopefuls Ross Perot and Steve Forbes donated substantial chunks of their own fortunes. Mitt Romney, a candidate in the presidential race, has been the largest donor to his own campaign by a wide margin. The Federal Elections Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 prohibits corporations and incorporated charitable organizations from giving to or spending for a candidate. However, PACs are a good way for corporations to dodge this law. It seems like for every regulation in place, there's a loophole that allows groups to bypass it. Bundling is another tactic used to skirt the regulations of the FEC. Bundling is when an individual gathers contributions from a large number of people and donates the money all at once to a campaign. The
bundler often enjoys prominence in the campaign and can gain access to the candidate to make a plea for his or her special interest. Bundling is currently a hot topic of debate and frequently called out in reform talks. . A cap on expenditure was initially made into legislation with FECA. However, the Supreme Court overturned the law in a landmark case just a few years later. The result of Buckley v. Valeo was that candidates have no cap on spending as long as the money is raised from private donors. Many state and local elections have voluntary spending limits and the result is usually a more level playing field for candidates. Politicians on the federal level are hesitant to back any provisions on spending limits because of the reality that more money usually ensures victory at the polls.
In the future, there will likely be more calls for reform that will be met with resistance from corporations, unions and special interest groups. Regardless of what reform legislation may be passed, a lack of enforcement and loopholes have made the American public skeptical about the dedication to cleaning up elections on the federal level.
Many states have taken matters into their own hands and are attempting to clean up their own elections. It's clear when looking at campaign finance reform that America's local communities are leading the charge. Throughout U.S. history, states have often been ahead of federal efforts. For example in 1909, Colorado passed the nation's first public funding system, only to have it ruled unconstitutional just one year later. Americans would have to wait 60 years to see another public funding plan.
Today, each state has control of its own campaign finance regulations, and some states have passed radical laws that govern their elections.
Thirty states have made substantial changes to their campaign finance laws in the last 15 years. Maine has pushed for public financing for all elections. Washington state requires online spending disclosure. Many states have lobbied for shorter campaign periods, voluntary spending limits and contribution caps with great success. By making spending limits voluntary, states are able to avoid violating the terms of the Buckley v. Valeo ruling. Some states limit contributions from individuals to PACs and from PACs to candidates. Unions and corporations are heavily monitored and limited in their influence, with Texas and Alaska prohibiting them from spending on a candidate's behalf altogether. Every state but Louisiana requires that campaign ads disclose who paid for them, and most mandate that ads paid for by organizations outside the campaign indicate that the candidate didn't authorize the ad. The same holds true for all radio and print
advertising. Colo­rado passed an aggressive piece of legislation in 2002 called Amendment 27. This finance reform initiative included caps on spending and contributions, as well as full disclosure of funds. Wealthy special interest groups were held in check by the measure, forcing candidates to work for a broad base of supporters instead of getting huge checks from a smaller pool. It also attempted to curb "attack ads" on the opposition by requiring candidates to personally stand behind their ads. While states are generally bolder in their reform attempts, there are still many shortcomings. Many states do not have the money to support public funding of elections, and enforcement agencies are often understaffed and overworked. Candidates who cheat the system rarely draw penalty and are almost never criminally prosecuted.