Campaign Finance Flashcards
(7 cards)
Structure
Transparency/reducing influence of big donors vs Loopholes
Corporation and Union influence reduced vs Supreme Court
Aiming to reduce Big Money vs Big Money increased
Transparency/reducing influence of big individual donors
- FECA 1974 limited individual contributions to a candidate to $1000, forbad contributions from foreign donors
- BCRA 2002 increased, and allowed for inflation-linked further increases in, individual limits on contributions to individual candidates. (Even then not perfect)
- McConnell v FEC - affirmed the BCRA ( John McCain said prevented politicians calling up rich individuals and saying “write me a check for $1m”)
But loopholes
501(c)(4)s
Bundlers aggregating smaller donations
527s = no limits on contributions or spending limits
McCutcheon v FEC 2014 - BCRA’s aggregate limit on how much contributors could spend in an election cycle violated the first amendment.
Corporations and Unions reduced
1907 Tillman Act banned banks and corporations from donating to fed candidates
FECA limited contributions to 5k per candidate
BCRA forbade unions and corporations from directly funding issue ads
But SC
Buckley v Valeo 1976 - FECA limitations violated first amendment
Citizens Utd and Speechnow.org
Overall influence of Big Money
FECA matching funds
BCRA - banned non-party campaigners from spending or raising soft money
Forbade fundraising on federal property
Obama small donations 2008 - Matthew Barzun
Bernie refusing Super PAC money
But unsuccessful in reducing big money
Obama rejected matching funds - raised most ever
Increasing cost of elections - trending upwards (15 billion in 2024)
Super PAC spending - 2016 Priorites for Action raised over $100m for Clinton; Rebuilding America Now raised $20m for Trump. In the 2016 cycle, Super PACs spent about $1.8b (according to Bloomberg) - more than 20% of all campaign spending and nearly $1bn more than in than in the 2014 cycle.
PACs, with their stricter limits, raised over $4b during the 2016 campaign
