Campaign Finance Pros And Cons

Campaign finance is a very controversial topic among Americans. Not a lot of U.S. citizens seem to be content with the system in place today due to the rising costs. This results in the average citizen feeling as if candidates will be more responsive to the opinions of people who donate more versus those who donate less. In the spring of 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform act was passed. Later, in 2010, this reform act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform of 2002 included many provisions to terminate the use of nonfederal money in activities dealing with federal elections. This made it so state, district, and local party committees had to fund various federal election activities. It also resulted in the prohibition of national parties raising as well as spending nonfederal funds. In a complete 180 degree fashion, the 2010 Citizens …show more content…
That money could have been spent on productive matters, such as schools, public works, etc., instead of being flushed down the toilet for a chance to represent Iowa. This election received approximately nine hundred-thousand dollars of out-of-state funding. These out of state contributions were likely fueled by business partnerships. PACs donated nearly one point three million dollars to this campaign. On Staci Appel’s side, these PACs included EMILY’s List, Iowa State University, the State of Iowa, and AmeriPAC, just to name a few. David Young received PAC funding from groups such as For America’s Republican Majority, Wells Fargo, Hawkeye PAC, etc. All of these different businesses have obvious personal ties to each candidate. Appel’s contributors come from a more liberal and social stance whereas Young’s contributors have obvious business and capitalist