Campaign Finance

Alienation is defined as the distrust of one's governing body. In the last five decades alienation and distrust of the U.S governments has increased and reach an all-time high. We saw protests during the 60's, reformers of the 70’s, economic lows in the 80's, and apathy takes hold of Americans from then on. American citizens turn to a scapegoat to blame their problems on, which happens to be, the president nearly all the time. People voice their opinions through voting but yet change that we have been promised in the past 4 presidents never came. College students are beginning to enter the "real world" and they are the leaders for “tomorrow’s world”. They are often first, possibly second time voters. They need to be able to make informed decisions about their leaders. However, they end up always picking one of the big two, Republican or Democrat. Not seeing any change from their promised leaders leaves them discouraged, they grown out of the rebellious college student and into the typical American worker, many who don’t vote again.

So why don’t see anyone "new" come fall in an election year? The answer is simple... Money. The candidates who raise the most are usually the ones moving in to the White House come January. The term is called Fiscal Federalism. It mainly pertains to the control of the federal government over states through money and loans but money is the way and means by which the government runs. This year just the top two candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) have raised a combine total of over $560 million (Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates 4). In the previous election (2004) the top prospects raised nearly $700 million (Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates 1). This is compared to $528 million in the 2000, $425 million in the 1996 election and $331 million in 1992. In 2002, Sen. McCain and Feingold reached across party to accomplish an agreement which became known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It placed limits on donations to candidates and eliminated soft money, yet we still see an increase in spending. There is a general money fund for presidential candidates and once someone has accepted it, those totals become your limits on spending for the ENTIRE campaign. No candidate accepts the federal aid and with the high cost of ad space, the amount is just about inefficient. Buckley v. Valeo (1974) upheld The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which created the FEC, Federal Election Commission. A presidential candidate has to raise $25,000 in small checks of no more than $250 dollars each in 20 states in individual checks just to qualify. All of the money is reported to the FEC, who’s job it is to monitor the election. This process makes sure the presidential hopeful is well-known/respected and so a single state favorite doesn’t end up running. The stipulations set in place by the system offer a good defense against corruption however there is compelling evidence that campaigns are unjustly financed. So we pose the question, “Are presidential campaigns financed justly?” Justly being defined as according to the Constitution and the expectations of the law. The people are knowledgeable of the law and expect the government to comply with those laws, and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution. People are trusting of the Constitution and the system.

The Founding Fathers, when drafting the Constitution, were wary of a powerful central government so they instituted limits and guidelines to keep the government in check. In 1971 we expanded those restrictions by the creation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. It was the first time that something like this was drafted so naturally it was challenged in court. The Supreme Court upheld that it was not a restriction of free speech and therefore the bill was constitutional. The new law placed limits on donations to candidates for the first time and created the FEC to monitor elections. All money, soft and hard, was to be reported to the FEC to ensure a “fair” race. Soft money is defined as the money given to a PAC (political action committee) and then given to a candidate, whereas hard money is money given straight to a candidate. Hard money was monitored but the soft money wasn’t watched very closely so PACs used to sneak lots of money to candidates that promised to “return the favor”. Also to level the competition there exists a public money fund for candidates to take if they don’t have enough money to wage a decent campaign. Presidents enjoy a lot of free things such as frank mail and not to mention the fact that the media is willing to jump on any interview the candidates are willing to give. But the money general fund helps with things such as commercial ads and campaign managers, spin doctors and speech writers. Some people argue that to completely level the playing field all candidates should have to accept the fund. Why? John Samples is the director of the Center of Representative Government, the Cato Institute, argues that candidates shouldn’t be forced into taking money from the public fund because of the burden it would place on taxpayers and the fact that we don’t have third parties strong enough to run against the 2 major parties. He’s right in that we the people then would have to pay directly for the elections and we haven’t had a legitimate 3rd party candidate since Ross Perot in ’88 and ’92. Even then, he didn’t accept the fund and financed his campaign on his own means. Before him the last “real” third party was the Bull Moose Party in the early 1920’s with Teddy Roosevelt. Then in 2002 Arizona Senator John McCain and Russ Feingold from Wisconsin set aside party differences to create the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This bill furthered the limits placed by the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. Also, with this new bill came the elimination of soft money. Even the process of elections is a deterrent for corruption.

There are always two sides to every story. The Founding Fathers did draft the blueprints of our government to evolve but the original framework was created in 1786 for 1786. Lets just examine the records for the past couple of elections. 1976, $171 million was spent, 1980 $161.9 million, 1984 $202 million, 1988 $324 million, 1992 $331 million, 1996 $425 million, 1998 $528.9 million, and 2004 $880.5 million (Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates 1). First of all why do we see an exponential increase in the late 80’s to the present? Spending $100 million in the late 70’s to early 80’s is very miniscule compared to spending an average of roughly $541 million for 1990’s to present? According to Samples in his negative view of the public fund, “…federal law has permitted taxpayers to earmark a portion of their taxes for the presidential election campaign fund. Only about 7 percent of Americans do so” (Samples 2). So if only 7% of Americans donate to the election campaign fund, then how do candidates raise $880.5 million dollars if they don’t accept the public fund? They don’t finance the race themselves and since only 7% of people are willing to donate money for able candidates, I can’t imagine they will be too willing to donate anything more. Most of the candidates refuse the fund because it becomes the limit once you accept that money. But the lesser known fact about the fund that most will neglect to tell you is the only way to be eligible for the fund is that you must have received 5% of the electoral votes in the previous election. With a winner take all system, anyone that doesn’t run under the label Democrat or Republican will lose. Even though the majority of Americans consider themselves as independents. Also the new “hot” thing to do to undermine the system is the creation of ‘527’s. These are new organizations just like PAC’s but don’t fall under the limits of PACs because they aren’t defined as PACs. Money makes everything better and easier. Just look at our recent presidents. What has qualified some of these people to become leaders of our nation? Current President Bush barely made it through college and has been labeled as a “draft dodger”. Even the scandal with former President Clinton, what kind of image does that convey not just his constituents but the rest of the world. President Reagan was an actor! Actors are actors, they perform for a living. They are not politicians who have experience or grown up as lawyers, political science scholars, or local leaders (such as mayors or governors). Even now we can see that you don’t need to be qualified as long as you can convince people as a great orator and you have the money to back it up. Half of that money comes from the government. Candidates receive money called matching funds that are separate from the public fund. For each individual contribution, candidates can petition the government to match the total of those contributions. And with no real spending limits candidates run rampaged. Distrust in the government is higher than ever before, and it’s easy to explain why. People may vote depending on what they see in a campaign. Once the president takes office and the honeymoon period is over we see their “true colors”. The voters become disappointed with their pick.

There are political arguments over the number of different eras our government has been through. 4 or 5? I say we have been through 5 different eras because the present begins our newest era, the era where the central government’s main focus is money. Fiscal Federalism. I don’t know if the lust for money has spilled over in the election process or if the system is enough to control and monitor it. The money being spent to put under qualified candidates into office is colossal but then again the 2 campaign reform bills and the FEC are formed just to regulate the elections. I don’t know which it could be or if it could ever be proven but all I know that government (on all levels) is about politics and the games they play.


Works Cited

Banking on Becoming President and Total Contributions to Presidential Candidates. Chart. Banking on Becoming President and 2004 Presidential Race. By The Center for Responsive Politics. Washington DC http://www.opensecrets.org/org/pres04/index.php?cycle=2004


Samples, John. “Electing the President? Should presidential campaigns be financed by public fund?
(Con)” CQ Researcher 17 (2007):