Campaign finance law is one of those subjects that sounds incredibly dull and boring, but in actuality is full of intrigue and potential corruption. Before the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in the early 1970s, there were no stringent limits on how much an individual or corporation could donate to a candidate.
Guess what catalyst changed that? Watergate. See? I told you this was scandalous stuff.
Ok, let’s talk about money and campaigns. Currently, there are four ways that a campaign brings in cash: 1) Small donations of less than $200 per individual, 2) Large donations of $200-$2,500 per individual, 3) Political Action Committees (PACs), and 4) Self-funding.
Between 2002-2010, when the McCain-Feingold Act was enacted and before it was struck down by the Citizens United Supreme Court case, corporations could not form Super PACs to contribute limitless amounts of money to candidates. Now, super PACs can support a candidate, but they may not have a first-hand relationship with said candidate. This is important because it limits the shady nature of a direct ‘no limits’ approach to campaign contributions.
Think about it … Let’s say Mr. Big Shot gives $10 million to President Obama for his reelection bid, and he wins the election. Down the line, Mr. Big Shot puts in a bid for a government contract and wins it. Even if he were the best guy for the job, it would be seen as a pay-for-play ploy, and that is no good at all. If Mr. Big Shot gave that money to a Super PAC, he would have no direct involvement with the campaign. Campaigns cannot tell super PACs what to do.
So now let’s get down to talking about individual donations to campaigns. A person may donate up to $2,500 to a candidate for each the primary and general election, even if the primary has already passed (to pay off campaign debt and such). Some people argue that limits should not be placed on these individual contributions as it violates our first amendment rights of free expression, but I don’t believe that’s a fair complaint.
Everyone has the same right to donate up to a certain amount of money to a candidate of his or her choice. The amount may be debated, and personally, I wouldn’t have a problem seeing it increased. $2,500 is hardly a large sum when we’re now spending more than a billion dollars on presidential elections.
In order to avoid accusations of partiality (whether valid or baseless), we need caps on campaign contributions. There’s no such thing as a perfect system, but this is the fairest way to ensure a clean election -- aside from all the mudslinging, of course.
Image via purpleslog/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Comments 8
I'm seriously against the "corporations are people" stance, as well. Corporations maybe be comprised of people, but that does not mean that they all share the same political values. It's as bad as unions using dues to support candidates.
Contributions should be limited to individuals only. Period. No company may make a contribution for any reason, likewise, no union, no non-profit, no polical action group, etc. Individuals only.
Where in the constitution is the government given the authority to limit campaign contributions?
And "PACs" were something that the democrats amended to McCain-Feingold so they could keep getting cash from their big money donors.
We do have the problem that on one hand, most congressmen spend more time fundraising than they do legislating. On the other hand, we as a nation spend more money advertising laundry soap than we do on elections.
Just curious, about how much, (in dollars) do you suppose the liberal media bias is worth to the democrats? After all, the Republicans have to buy their air time thirty seconds at a time, the democrats get endless hours for free.
That's a good question to ask, Florida, but in this case, I think it bears a discussion, because corruption is so incredibly rampant.
Jenny, I'm thrilled to read an article of yours I agree with! This is well written and unbiased - you're not bashing either side. Each side is fairly limited. Kudos.
To @Guest - what do you call Fox news?? The liberals don't own the airwaves, in fact it's the opposite. Big corporations like Fox/Ruport Murdoch own the media channels. And gee, do big corporations tend to be liberal or conservative? HMMMM. The only liberal media I have access to is a tiny local radio station called KPFK. Otherwise, it's Conservative News Hour 24/7.
Oh no, in fact, let's even try to tell people it's the OPPOSITE of reality. Let's try to convince ourselves and weak minded others that the quantifiable, measurable documented bias really doesn't exist, by tossing out the words "Big Corporations", because we all know good liberals are supposed to hate those, even if they don't really understand why that is...