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

Proposition DD: Let the Bets Flow

On November 5 th , 2019, one of the two measures placed on the ballot in Colorado was Proposition DD, giving the electorate a referendum on the legality of sports betting within the state; it also would impose a tax upon the net revenue of those establishments accepting such bets, the majority of which would provide funding for the Colorado Water Plan and the remainder of which would be used to regulate sports betting and provide services for gambling addiction. Since 1992, gambling on the outcome of most sporting events had been outlawed nationally under the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, or PASPA, though with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association , this Act was deemed unconstitutional, and state legislatures became free to legislate regarding sports betting and its legality. Proposition DD was put to a public ballot under the provisions of the TABOR amendment to the Colorado Constitution, a ‘Taxpayer Bill of Rights’ ...
2 comments
Read more

The Proponents of Proposition DD

Proposition DD and its proponents One of the most significant and noteworthy results of the recent elections in Colorado was the passing of Proposition DD. A legislative proposition is a proposal placed on the ballot by the state legislature itself. The legislature in Denver referred the measure with House Bill 1327 during the spring season, with easy bipartisan support. [1] The proposition however did not receive such widespread support from the public, only narrowly passing, and being too close to call on election night. This is illustrated below. [2] The passage of Proposition DD legalised gambling on sports events, beginning in six months’ time; making Colorado the nineteenth state to legalise sports betting. Colorado’s seventeen casino operators will be eligible to apply for licenses for both physical and online sportsbooks, with the Colorado Division of Gaming being tasked to regulate the market. [3] ‘Yes on Proposition DD’ raised about $2.83 million for ca...
Post a Comment
Read more

Immigration Visas and Polarization

Megan King  The story I decided to investigate in National News is , “ Federal Judges Block Trump Policy Targeting Legal Immigrants on Public Benefits ” by Claire Hansen demonstrates how difficult the policymaking procedure can be. In regard to the separations of powers, this ideology does give each branch equal representation, which in this case was to block a new policy. In this situation, three judges filed lawsuits because the new policy the Government was going to implement that visas could be denied if they think that immigrants who are going to use public benefits. It is known as the “public charge” policy which is basically, “any individual who is deemed likely to accept a benefit is considered a public charger” which was just another attempt from the Trump Administration desiring to stop immigration (Hansen). There has already been policies in place that set up circumstances that Immigration Courts and the Government have set up to deny immigration residence just in...
2 comments
Read more