| OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 Campaign Finance Reform By David A. Owen This essay provides an overview of the current federal laws and regulations governing the financing of federal campaigns and suggests areas of possible reform. The discussion centers on funds raised and spent by candidates , as well as monies raised by parties and other independent groups and organizations, in their efforts to affect the outcome of elections for federal offices. Included is an overview of the major areas in which reforms are being pursued and the possible effects of these reforms on the federal campaign finance system. INTRODUCTION It doesn't take a high-paid pollster, or a top-notch political consultant to make the observation that by and large in recent years the American public has become increasingly detached from politics, and their confidence in the system by which we elect politicians is waning. A simple look at voter turnout numbers for the four most recent national election cycles (National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996 n.d., 1) will illustrate that more and more Americans are interested less and less about politics and what takes place in our nation's capital. This increased apathy towards our political process can be attributed to many factors. Some scholars argue that because our economy is doing so well, average Americans have less of a need to rely on politics to solve pressing issues in their lives. However, many others point to an increasing lack of trust in not only politicians (something that has been present ever since the invention of our political process) but also in the system by which they come to power. It is the contention of this paper that our current system of financing federal campaigns through the use of soft money and other loopholes has eroded public confidence in the process of electing leaders for our nation and that only through valid and proactive reform measures can we begin to undo this damage. I will begin by examining how changes in campaign financing led to the phenomenon of so called "soft-money" or non-federal contributions to party committees. I will also discuss another loophole referred to as the independent expenditure law. David Owen received a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from the University of Utah. David worked for Senator Robert Kerry of Massachusetts and Utah Congressman Jim Matheson. He has plans to attend law school. Table 1 'Soft Money' Growth 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Republicans $49.8 $52.5 $141.2 $131.0 $244.4 Democrats $36.3 $49.1 $122.3 $91.5 $243.1 (Millions) Source: Federal Election Commission reports SOFT MONEY The concept of soft money was developed in 1978 by a Federal Elections Commission ruling, but was not used to any great degree until the 1988 presidential campaign. Since that time, solicitations and donations have grown exponentially, especially during the last few election cycles. In recent years, soft money has been used to buy TV ads that are virtually indistinguishable from ads promoting a candidate (Hope 1999, 2). The explosive growth in soft money can be seen in Table 1. While soft money was limited to $86 million in 1992, by 1996 Republicans and Democrats raised $263.5 million. The deluge continued in 2000, as both parties raised $487 million, nearly double the sums gathered in 1996. "Soft money" is unregulated money donated to political parties, ostensibly for party building activities such as voter registration drives, as opposed to the highly regulated donations to specific candidates for federal offices. More specifically, soft money consists of donations to national and state party committees (i.e. the Democratic National Committee, Republican National Congressional Committee etc.) that is used for non-candidate party activities ranging from such things as generic get-out-the-vote drives to performing voter registration and voter identification initiatives. In addition to these "party building" activities, one of the most common and expensive uses for soft dollars is in airing issue advocacy advertisements on television and radio. These are political advertisements which do not specifically advocate the vie to- 57 |
