To what extent are the laws restricting campaign finance affective? (30 marks)
- Created by: yazmintaylorx
- Created on: 07-05-18 10:43
View mindmap
- regulation of campaign finance
- lack of regulation of TV ads
- FECA 1971 set caps on TV ads to 10 cents per voter in the previous election
- Buckely v. Valeo 1976 - campaign finance laws can only restrict speech that 'expressly advocated' for/against a candidate
- bi-partisan campaign reform act 2002 banned unions & corporations funding 'electioneering communications'
- 527s increased as a result
- can accept unlimited sums as long as they disclose donors
- 527s increased as a result
- Citizens United v. FEC 2010 ruled in favour of campaign financing - 1st A
- Super PACs increased
- can accept unlimited amounts of money to independently help candidates
- Super PACs increased
- 1,310 Super PACs raised over $828m 2012
- electorate unfairly influenced by wealthy groups through TV ads
- prevents electoral being properly educated on issues
- elections decided on image rather than issues
- no limits on spending by candidates on their own campaigns
- FECA 1971 imposed limits up to $50,000 for president & VP. $35,000 for senate. $25,000 for reps.
- Buckley v. Valeo 1976 unconstitutional to limit personal spending - 1st A
- easier for wealthier candidates to win
- view of the wealthy better represented
- promotes elitism
- decline in public financing of campaigns
- Revenue Act 1971 - candidates receive $20m public funds if they raise no private funds
- FECA 1971 - expanded public funding to include matching funds up to $10m limit
- however, decline in public financing
- Obama 2008 refused public funding & raised $745m. Romeny raised $84.1m
- 2012 & 2016 both candidates rested public funding
- less diversity of candidates
- may put off candidates from different backgrounds
- give voters less choice & increase apathy
- restrictions on individuals, corporations, banks, unions, parties & PACs
- McCutcheon v. FEC 2014 - left intact the $2,600 limit to single candidate by single donor
- prevents elitism & promotes pluralist democracy
- help reduce growing importance of money in elections
- can get around regs. by forming Super PACs, 527s, 501(c)s (classes as social welfare groups)
- ban on soft money
- FECA 1979 allowed individuals, corporations & parties to give unlimited donations to candidates as soft money
- bi-partisan campaign reform act 2002 banned soft money from being raised by national party committees
- McConnell v. FEC 2003 ban on soft money didn't violate free speech
- helps reduce loopholes in finance regs.
- create more public confidence in finance regs.
- reduces apathy
- all other organisations can donate unlimited amounts of soft money
- lack of regulation of TV ads
Comments
No comments have yet been made