OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 Voter Turnout for Presidential Elections 62'8 61.9 60.9 55.2 53.5 „ A 53.1 55.9 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 Presidential Election Year Federal Election Campaign Costs 600 - 3 200 1992 Democrat 1996 Republican | the House: $675,000. The numbers are staggering, but those are not the entire picture. According to Senator Richard Durbin(D-IL) (1997): U.S. federal election costs have increased to an estimated $2.65 billion in the 1996 cycle. That is a threefold increase over campaign spending just 20 years ago even adjusting for inflation __ In the 1995-96 election cycle, the Democratic Party committees raised $322 million, a 73 percent increase over the $129 million raised just 4 years before. The Republicans ... raised $549 million, a 74 percent increase over the $316 million that they raised 4 years earlier__ In 1976, all congressional races in the United States cost $99 million. By 1996, 20 years later, that $99 million had mushroomed to $626 million ... more than a sixfold increase. (See chart above.) A Call for Reform Just as expenditures have increased, so has the call for reform. Thomas E. Mann of the Brookings Institution in a discussion of the reform proposals for the 105th Congress stated: "The campaign finance system in America has been a problem for some time. But in 1996, it went from the political equivalent of a low-grade fever to Code Blue, from a chronic problem needing attention sooner or later to a crisis, with a system clearly out of control" (1996, 1997). Mann stresses that "the system needs both an immediate fix in a few important areas, and some sustained attention to the broader problems." The public and party leaders agree that something needs to be done about campaign finance. However, there is no common consensus on the method to accomplish any significant reform, and so the battle continues. Obstacles to Reform Since the Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, dozens of proposals have been put forth only to die on the floor of Congress. Those that manage to pass through the halls of Congress intact, are then declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In the last ten years Congress has spent a significant amount of time and resources attempting to change the current system of campaign finance. Senator Durbin (D-IL), during floor debate explained: [On the subject of campaign finance reform there were] 6,742 pages of hearings; 3,361 floor speeches ...; 2,748 pages of reports from the Congressional Research Service; 1,063 pages of committee reports; 11.3 votes in the Senate; 522 witnesses; 49 days of testimony; 29 sets of hearings from 8 different congressional committees; 17 filibusters; 8 cloture votes on one bill; 1 Senator arrested and dragged to the floor ... with bodily injury ... and 15 reports issued by 6 different congressional committees. This struggle to reform the system of campaign finance is not a new one. Each congressional session brings renewed efforts to get some form of campaign finance reform passed, but each session then closes with no real progress made. Just as elections in this country were beginning, so was the call for reform. History of Campaigns and Campaign Reform When Candidates were "Gentlemen" The men who founded our country believed that public service was a "moral obligation." They were fearful of what would happen to government, and invariably the welfare of those governed, if the less educated and less wealthy "masses" participated in lawmaking. As a result, the earliest elections in this country primarily involved candidates who represented "aristocratic factions before a relatively small, homogeneous electorate of propertied white men" (Mutch 1998). Approximately 4 percent of American citizens were eligible to cast a ballot. Voters consisted of "gentlemen" and property owners, or individuals from the same class as the candidates. The byproduct of this restricted electorate was the belief of many presidential candidates that it was "improper and undignified to campaign" (Christian 1996, 152). In these early elections, most campaign expenses, if any, were paid directly by the candidates. Such campaigns required only minimal funding, perhaps to be used to publish an occasional campaign pamphlet. "Candidates," states author Robert Mutch, "did not 'run' for election but 'stood' for office, 2J |