Running head: CAMPAIGN FINANCE 1

Campaign Finance
Joseph Guanzon
POLS 1100
1 May 2014










CAMPAIGN FINANCE 2


Campaign Finance
The topic of campaign finance has been receiving an increasing amount of attention.
With recent Supreme Court cases, campaign platforms, Political Action Committees, and laws
(and subsequent modifications) on the issue of campaign finance, it seems nearly impossible to
pay any attention to politics without hearing about it. The founding fathers did not address the
issue of financing political campaigns. Through a long and complex series of laws, repeals, and
Supreme Court cases, the oversight by the founders leaves the political system with the latest
iteration of the ever evolving business of campaign finance.
Though the founders didnt collectively enact legislation surrounding the funding of
political campaign their actions tell a much different story than seen in todays political arena.
Campaigning was considered undignified. Candidates stood for office and individuals wrote
tracts in newspapers to either support or denounce them. Then in the early nineteenth century,
the political arena saw the first spoils for supporting winning candidates. (Gutierrez Walter,
2014) The election winners would place their supporters in government jobs. This was the birth
of the modern political campaign, where politicians try to convince voters to choose them. These
larger campaigns resulted in a need to raise capital to pay for the added expense.
For much of the twentieth century, campaign finance remained largely unchanged. That
was until Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971. The act set
regulations for federal primary races and general elections. A subsequent amendment to FECA in
1974 and the 1976 Buckley v Valeo ruling from the Supreme Court stripped the original act of
much of its influence. With the more recent Supreme Court cases Citizens United v Federal
Election Commission in 2010 and McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission in 2014, the
CAMPAIGN FINANCE 3

country has entered a new age in terms of campaign finance. An ever increasing amount of
money is being spent on political campaigns, both directly donated to the candidates and
indirectly through Political Action Committees. The 2014 election cycle is a midterm election
which means there is not a Presidential election on the ticket. These elections typically result in
fewer voters heading to the ballot box. In spite of that, PAC spending for the 2014 election cycle
is on pace to surpass the record breaking 2012 election. (Total Outside Spending by Election
Cycle, Excluding Party Committees., 2014)
The 1
st
Amendment to our Constitution protects an individuals right to free speech.
(United States Constitution Amendment I, 1791) The 14
th
Amendment requires equal treatment
under the law. (United Stated Constitution Amendment XIV, 1868) Throughout the history of
the United States, there has been an ongoing struggle to balance freedom and equality in regards
to political spending. What are the potential ramifications of limiting ones personal liberty, by
being told one cannot spend money in the manner of their choosing? If one is allowed to spend
as much of their money on a political campaign as theyd like, what happens to those voters who
do not have the money to spend? Perhaps more questions remain than answers in todays
convoluted campaign finance landscape, but that wont deter those on either side of the argument
from trying to advance their agenda. One persons vote should not be more important simply due
to their ability to buy a politicians ear. Its clear by looking at other democracies that elections
can be largely, if not entirely funded publically.
There is no reason for a politician running for public office to need private funds to get
elected. Theres also no reason to believe that a corporation is a person or that money equals
speech. There is clear need for a 28
th
Amendment to be added to the Constitution that would ban
money from politics all together. If money is removed from politics, a candidate would be
CAMPAIGN FINANCE 4

elected based on their message instead their fundraising ability, and once elected could they
could concentrate on their constituents instead of their donors.
Congress shall make no lawprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, (United States Constitution Amendment I). The Supreme Court ruling in
Buckley v Valeo found that the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in]
order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment (Buckley
v Valeo 1976). This ruling essentially meant that money equals speech. The Citizens United
ruling that businesses could spend an unlimited amount of money on political campaigns,
combined with the Buckley v Valeo ruling, helped create a separate class of voter; one that would
have vote that mattered more than those unable to spend money on elections. When money
equals speech, those with more money have more voice. If someone has the means to spend
money to support politicians that will enact legislation which will benefit them personally,
theyve corrupted the system without directly participated in quid pro quo corruption, which is
Latin meaning something for something. Indeed it is possible for systemic corruption without
any of the players being corrupt.
As Heresco wrote, If dollars are directly correlated with political speech, and an increase
in votes, what does that say for citizens without access to wealth? (Heresco, Aaron 2014) This
simple statement points directly to the heart of the argument against private funding of political
campaigns. When a candidate is running for office, they are required to spend much of their time
raising money. Instead of holding town hall meetings with their constituents to get an idea of the
type of legislation they want, candidates may instead be attending a fundraiser with donors who
arent even eligible to vote for them. When an elected politician spends nearly a fifth of their
time raising funds (Life in Congress 2013), not only is that time taken away from their
CAMPAIGN FINANCE 5

constituents, theres an assumed tendency to vote in such a way to make the biggest donors
happy. Taking the topic of climate change for example; if a congressional member received a
large campaign donation from the oil drilling industry, or perhaps a fundraising banquet thrown
by industry lobbyists, the member may be less likely to vote against legislation that may be
detrimental to the industry, despite calls from his constituency and scientific evidence urging
them to vote otherwise. While this example may seem extreme, when one considers the goal of
re-election is near the top of most candidates goals, keeping their donors happy enough to
continue to donate is a given.
A 2011 CNN poll found that 86% of the country agreed that elected officials in
Washington are mostly influenced by the pressure they receive on issues from major campaign
contributors, while only 12% agreed that elected officials are mostly influenced by what is in the
best interests of the country (CNN/Opinion Research Poll 2011). The recent McCutcheon v
Federal Election Commission ruling removed many of the limitation for donation limits per
individual donor. This ruling came despite only 591 donors reaching the donation limit to federal
candidates during the 2012 election cycle. (McCutcheon vs FEC, 2013) 591 donors is only
0.0000019% of the population. The fact that such a small percentage of the country can
essentially donate an unlimited amount of money means that the average voter in this country
has little voice in the matter. While the numbers certainly favor the amount of people who didnt
donate the maximum amount, something to consider is the effect that money has before most
voters can cast their vote on Election Day.
Similar to the situation many Southern States experienced with the White Primaries in
the late 19
th
and early 20
th
century, the country now finds itself in a situation where a small
demographic of citizens controls who the general electorate gets to vote for. In the White
CAMPAIGN FINANCE 6

Primaries, just as the name states, only whites were eligible to vote in the primary election. This
meant that only those candidates already pre-approved by the primary voters were allowed to get
to the ballot box for the populace to vote for. Due to the control money has over political
campaigns, the country now finds itself in a similar situation where a small portion of the
population controls the primary system. While it may be true in theory that a majority of voters
can influence the outcome of a particular election, money has influence over the voters as well.
(Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever, 2008)
With seemingly endless amounts of money to be spent on campaigns, a large amount will
eventually wind up paying for advertisements to either support, or attack a candidate. In addition
to the ad campaigns there is another dimension many may not even be aware of. Steven Lukes
argued, What if A and B actually have the same preferences and that very fact is evidence of
As power over B? What if B has real interests and preferences that differ from As, but B is not
even conscious of his own interests because of the power of A? (Hubert, 2014) Perhaps Eugene
Debs said it best in his 1908 speech in Girard, KS when he said, I dont hate the workingman
because he has turned against me. I know the poor fellow is too ignorant to understand his self-
interest He votes for men who represent a system in which labor is simply merchandise
(Debs, 1908) There is a very real possibility that a large block of the voting base vote contrary to
the betterment of their own situation due to an influence theyre wholly unaware of.
With so many issues at play, it may seem like such a complicated problem should require
a complicated solution. On the contrary, one simple solution could take care of many of the
aforementioned issues. That one solution is simply to add a 28
th
Amendment to the constitution
prohibiting private financing for public office. A general fund could be set up to fund political
campaigns. Donors could donate to the party of their choosing. The funds could then be
CAMPAIGN FINANCE 7

dispersed based on federal, state, and local elections. No candidate for any race may have a
substantial amount more than any of their opponents; this would include a candidates own
personal financing as well. There are several organizations actively campaigning politicians at
the state level to begin the process. It is clear, given todays hyper-partisanship in Washington,
that a new Amendment wont be added by simply hoping congress can work together to enact
legislation that would negatively affect their biggest donors as well as the politicians own
bottom line.
It is time to discontinue the practice of buying elections and give the power back to the
people. The vast majority of the population believes the money in politics is a corrupting
influence. The views of the people should be reflected in the type of legislation enacted, within
the realm of the Constitution. It is time to add the 28
th
Amendment to ban private money from
public campaigns. When the playing field is leveled, the candidate with the best ideas wins, not
the candidate with the biggest wallet.


CAMPAIGN FINANCE 8

References
Buckley v Valeo, 424 (1 1976).
CNN.com. (2011, June 7). Retrieved from CNN:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/06/09/rel10d-2.pdf
Cooper, N. V. (2013, July 29). Life in Congress. Retrieved from www.congressfoundation.org:
http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/life-in-congress-the-
member-perspective.pdf
Debs, E. V. (1908). Speech in Girard, Kansas. Girard, Kansas.
Gutierrez Walter, M. (2014, Apr 2). Campaign finance overview. Salem Press Encyclopedia .
Heresco, A. (2014). Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform, Deliberative Democracy, And Citizens
United. Democratic Communiqu.
Hubert, D. (2014). Attenuated Democracy: An Introduction to U.S. Government and Politics. Salt Lake
City: Creative Commons.
McCutcheon vs FEC. (2013, November 14). Retrieved from OpenSecrets.org:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/mccutcheon_about.php?mv
Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever. (2008, November
5). Retrieved from OpenSecrets.org: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-
white-house-and.html
Total Outside Spending by Election Cycle, Excluding Party Committees. (2014, April 28). Retrieved from
OpenSecrets.org:
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/cycle_tots.php?cycle=2012&view=Y&chart=N#su
mm
United Stated Constitution Amendment XIV. (1868).
United States Constitution Amendment I. (1791).