History of Campaign Fundraising and Electoral Reform
From digmovements
Contents |
[edit] Electoral Reforms
- 1907 Corporations banned from donating to Politicians' campaigns.
- 1947 Labor Unions banned from donating
- 1974 Strengthen disclosure requirements. Limit placed on individual donations and spending caps placed on campaigns.
- 1976 Supreme Court rules that spending caps are unconstitutional.
- 1979 Soft Money exception passed
- 2002 New law created to reduce soft money loophole[1]
[edit] Soft Money
“Soft Money” is donations to the Democratic or Republican National Committees and not to the candidates campaigns themselves, a practice introduced in 1979. Soft Money allows candidates to receive money for their campaigns, because unlike money donated directly to their campaigns, which is capped and regulated, the donations can be made to their party’s committee and then given to the candidate. This process of “soft money” allows wealthy elites and lobbyists to make very large donations they otherwise would not be able to, if sent directly to the candidate. This allows for the wealthy elites and corporations to have a major say in the going ons of political parties and the candidates. Furthermore, the introduction of soft money has made it virtually impossible for candidates to compete if they do not receive soft money. In 2004, we saw soft money donations take a new turn, when interest groups used section 527 of the IRS to fund (with the interest group’s money) television commercials in favor of their candidate. This manipulation gave advocacy groups, such as Progress for America, a heavily weighted voice in the ’04 election[2]
[edit] Corrupt Campaigning
Since the second election in 1792, (George Washington ran unopposed in 1789) money has been a major factor in deciding who gets the presidential bid. Furthermore, since 1792 the size of the candidate’s wallet has been a major factor in who acquires the bid. The amount of money it costs to even think about running for president has always been solely in the range of the wealthy elites. This made it so the common man (or even the upper middle class) can’t really even consider taking on such a challenge. In the early years of presidential campaigns, the process was very corrupt. There were very few regulations on how candidates could go about raising funds and as a result the donation process. Virtually the entire process of election was decided by very wealthy elites who donate large sums based on personal interests, not based on the needs of the country as a whole.
[edit] First Steps of Reform
In the early 20th century, we started to see electoral reform, after over a century of corrupt fundraising tactics by candidates. The steps to early reform are highlighted in the USA Today article: “In fighting campaign reform, GOP forgets its history”. In 1904, when Theodore Roosevelt first ran for the presidency, his campaign was secretly financed by several large corporations. Initially, this was not disclosed to the public and was not discovered until congressional hearings in 1999 Ironically enough, in 1907, during Roosevelt’s first term, the majority Republican congress passed a law banning political contributions from corporations. [3] Tthere was still significant corruption involved in elections that and the reforms did little to change that. Corruption in election fundraising was common throughout the 19th century, Radio and Newspapers were controlled by major corporations with vested interests, Politicians didn’t have to disclose the majority of their fundraising methods. This information was not available to the public. It wasn’t until the mid seventies when the people first saw the level of corruption within elections, due to the infamous watergate scandal.
[edit] Watergate and Electoral Reform
In 1972, the corrupt tactics of Nixon’s campaign were discovered from the infamous Watergate scandal, when members of Nixon’s campaign got caught red-handed breaking into the Democratic National Committee’s office in the Watergate Hotel. Major public outcry and backlash followed with the discovery of the corrupt actions involved with campaigning. In 1974, a series of Electoral reforms were passed by congress, which increased disclosure requirements, curbed individual campaign donations, and put spending caps on campaigns. However, two years after the reform on spending caps was passed, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, that limits on campaign spending were unconstitutional under the first amendment, but limits on contributions were acceptable[1]
[edit] Internet Fundraising: the end of corrupt campaigning?
Despite popular opinion, corruption in elections has been around since the beginning and is still around today. However, as politicians began to utilize the Internet for donations, which allows them to receive donations from anyone, anywhere, and at any time, they can begin to shift from going solely for big money and instead try to get small donations from many different donors, and the internet, like no other media technology before, allows candidates to do this. If the Internet continues to increase in accessibility, it will allow politicians to at least have the option to forgo soft money and large donations from advocacy groups and lobbyists. This in turn will make the fundraising process more honest and all candidates will be able to make the promises Obama did and follow through with them. In summation, corruption will always exist in our elections, however with the capabilities of the Internet, Politicians at least have the option to run an honest campaign and actually be successful
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 30 Years After Watergate, Money Trail is Still Crooked. USA Today 21 June 2002.
- ↑ Weigel, David. "More Money, No Problem." Reason May 2007. <http://www.reasonmag.com/>.
- ↑ "In Fighting Campaign Reform, GOP Forgets Its History." USA Today 26 Feb. 2002, sec. News: 13. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Daniel J. Evans Library, Olympia, WA.
