It’s no secret that money plays a huge role in political campaigns. For years, special interest groups have tried to influence the outcomes of elections by infusing large sums of money into the campaigns they favor, and this year’s presidential election is no different.
Throughout the years, scores of outraged Americans have decried the infusion of money into political campaigns and the influence that it gains the contributors of the funds.
In response, Congress has repeatedly attempted to reform campaign finance, but cash still litters the campaign landscape. Campaign finance reform has proven ineffectual, so it’s time to ditch the effort and focus on more productive endeavors.
History displays the failures of campaign finance reform. Historic attempts at reforming the system include the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibited unions and corporations from contributing financially to campaigns, and the Federal Election Campaign Act, which established a commission that further regulated campaign finance, according to scholars Edward Drachman and Robert Langran.
However, they note that various loopholes in regulation, and Political Action Committees, created by business interests or candidates, have deluged campaigns with money, although they can’t completely collaborate with campaigns.
More recently, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. The Act imposed further restrictions on campaign contributions, but it was ineffective in curbing the influence of money in the 2004 presidential election.
As the Campaign Legal Center reveals, the Federal Election Commission failed to enforce provisions regulating tax-exempt 527 organizations, which played a significant but somewhat smaller role in the elections.
This is just another example of administrative failure.
But administrative failure seems destined to follow the FEC, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and this is by design. Part of the problem, the center explains, is that the agency was created by Congress to regulate itself, so it would be in Congress’s interest to ensure that it isn’t that effective.
Moreover, the center notes that there are six members on the commission, no more than three of who can be from a particular party, and since a majority must make a ruling, the commission often splits along party lines. Thus, administration-lag reigns.
Adding to the rampant administrative inefficiencies are the Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. FEC ruling and the dawn of super-PACs, which are PACs on steroids. Regarding the Citizens United case, the court basically ruled that the government can’t hinder corporations’ or unions’ spending for political purposes, because this is a form of speech that the First Amendment protects, though these groups still can’t directly fund campaigns.
Thus, the ruling overturned parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Despite the dubiousness of this ruling, it’s unlikely that congressional attempts to subvert it will be successful.
Where campaign finance reform has failed, disclosure has been more effective. The Center For Responsive Politics cites that the FEC actually has been successful when it comes to disclosure of contributions, although there are still some minor obstacles.
Their web site, opensecrets.org, regularly discloses campaign contributors so that the public can know where most of the money’s coming from instead of relying on Congress (which gains from ineffective finance laws) to truly reform the process.
Leonardo Poareo is a senior journalsim major and a contributing writer for the Daily 49er.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
