Skip to main content

Campaign Contributions and Elections

Money influences the outcomes of elections. This seems like an obvious concept, it is the reason that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) exists, to track campaign expenditures and ensure that the regulations surrounding campaign donations are followed, or in the FECs own words, to “[Protect] the integrity of the campaign finance process” (FEC.gov). Campaign Financing is an important issue to consider both in the short term, leading up to elections, and in the long run, while an elected official holds office. However, campaign finance law is incredibly intricate and the regulations surrounding it are changing all the time. Every year in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations the FEC publishes the changes made to regulations pertinent to campaign finance law (FEC.gov).  In addition to regulating campaign finance law, the FEC tracks campaign contributions to the individual candidates running in the Presidential, Senatorial and House elections both so they can punish any violations of campaign finance law and so the campaign expenditures of various candidates can be visible to the public. 
In 1896 the public began to call for regulation of campaign donations after William McKinley received more than $16 million in contributions for his 1896 campaign, $6 million of which came from businesses (Open Secrets). In 1907 corporate contributions were banned and shortly after, in 1910, the first law that required disclosure of all money spent on elections by political parties was implemented. The next big milestone in campaign finance regulation occurred in 1974 after the Watergate scandal, the backlash from the scandal triggered the creation of the FEC to track and regulate campaign finance law. In 2010 when the Supreme Cout came to a decision on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case the ban on corporate contributions from 1907 was lifted (Oyez). 
The decision made in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was the most recent major upheaval to campaign finance law and is one of the most famous campaign finance cases, however, Citizens United created very few changes. Citizens United upheld the same requirements regarding disclosure of campaign spending, including the disclosure exception 501(c) nonprofit organizations that allowed non-profits to ensure the privacy of their individual donors, and the decision in Citizens United did not change any party or candidate contribution limits.  The main impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was that corporations were once again allowed to donate to campaigns.
Ensuring that campaign finance law is not violated is an incredibly important task. Campaign contributors have a lot of sway in the political process. Money provides easier access to politicians and their staff members to discuss issues as shown in, “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment“, so big monetary contributors to campaigns, including individuals, organizations, and corporations, are able to personally express their concerns to officials with less effort. Additionally, a link has been shown between the amount of money a candidate spends on their campaign and their likeliness to win as shown by this line graph: 
Fig .1   fivethirtyeight
The graph shows what percent of candidates who spent the most on their campaigns  House and Senate elections won their seat. In the case of House elections over 90% of top-spending candidates won (How Money Affects Elections). Part of this correlation can be explained by the fact that a more popular candidate will have more people donating to their campaign, nevertheless, campaign finance is closely regulated in an attempt to ensure greater confidence in the election process.
“Campaign Finance Fact Sheet for Journalists - Ifs.org.” Institute for Free Speech, https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017-05-01_IFS-One-Pager_Campaign-Finance-Fact-Sheet-For-Journalists.pdf.
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205.
“Home.” FEC.gov, U.S. Government, https://www.fec.gov/.
Kalla, Joshua L., and David E. Broockman. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111), 2 Apr. 2015, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajps.12180.
maggiekb1. “How Money Affects Elections.” FiveThirtyEight, FiveThirtyEight, 10 Sept. 2018, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/.
“Money-in-Politics Timeline.” OpenSecrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline.
“Regulations.” FEC.gov, U.S Government, https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/regulations/.

Comments

  1. Eddy BaisleySeptember 23, 2019 at 8:42 PM

    Thank you for your post, I was eager to read what you had to say about campaign finance after reading chapter 4 of our text book. In my opinion, I think that the Supreme Court made a mistake with their Citizens United case. Like you stated, there is no doubt that money influences elections to one extent or another, so I why are some people able to donate unlimited sums of money? To me it is very evident that unlimited campaign contributions through super PACs undermines democracy in the most basic sense. On top of that, I don't think corporations should be able to donate money at all. If the rich elite are able to dictate which candidate gets the most money, then they virtually get to decide which candidate wins the election. In short, I the think the U.S. should adopt a policy similar to what we had under the FEC before Citizens United.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Ballot Initiative in Colorado

    One of the most distinctive features of the legislative process in Colorado is the prevalence of the ballot initiative. In the election this November, voters had the opportunity to approve their own laws. One of these laws included a proposition that would legalize sports betting.     This is not the first time that voters have had the ability to make hugely influential decisions. Voters have voted to legalize marijuana. In Colorado, they even approve tax increases because of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR. This means that, unlike in other states, Colorado voters have legislative power of their own.      One of these most recent initiatives involved sports betting. Colorado would legalize sports betting, but sports betting would be taxed. This revenue would be used to fund plans to address Colorado's water problem. However, according to the Colorado Sun, the money from sports betting will not generate any money to address these water iss...
Post a Comment
Read more

TABOR & Proposition CC: Providing Context to Colorado's Tax Problem

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 Dec. 2019 Blog Post 3 (TABOR and Proposition CC) Colorado's tax system is very unique in comparison to pretty much every other state in the U.S. Arguably the biggest aspect of the tax system that is unique is the amendment to the Colorado Constitution known as TABOR or the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. This amendment which was drafted into law in 1992, has many implications for Colorado's state and local governments. One of the main implications is that TABOR requires the state and local governments of Colorado to acquire voter approval before any tax increase can be implemented. Some other more less known implications are detailed by Denver Post author Anna Staver, she explains that TABOR: “ Limits how many tax dollars governments can keep … It’s called the TABOR cap, anything a government collects above the cap gets returned as a TABOR tax refund … (TABOR) Limits when lawmakers can ask voters to raise taxe...
1 comment
Read more

The Flawed American Electoral System

A free and fair election is one that is inclusive to all of the population. A democratic state requires active citizen participation to ensure equal representation. The framers of the constitution originally wanted the United States government to only be governed by educated white men. It was not until 1920 that the 19th amendment was passed that allowed white females to vote in America. Then it was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed African-Americans the right to vote freely. There were many amendments and reforms throughout history that has changed our election system. Different changes to state election process will ensure an equitable election system. This is a highly debated legislative issue that goes back and forth for the past decade and into the 2020 election. It is crucial for such a powerful and free country to protect its proud democratic values.  There are still issues with the American election systems. There are a lot of holes in represe...
1 comment
Read more