In the 2015-2016 election cycle, political action committees (PACs) raised $1.4 billion to aid presidential and congressional campaigns; the majority of that money is non-traceable and does not come with a name tag attached (Federal Election Commission). After the landmark Supreme Court Case of Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, American politicians have been under fire for their cloak and dagger tactics to raise money for their political parties and election campaign finances. In the controversial 2010 decision, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the Citizens United PAC to allow them to freely broadcast a 90 minute political documentary about Hillary Clinton 30 days prior the primary election. This overturned the Bipartisan
…show more content…
Dark money is becoming a largely used phrase for the money that is donated to political nonprofit groups, 501(c)(4)s, and this money comes without a name tag. These politically active nonprofits are not required to give the names of donors or how much any individual donor gives. With the Citizens United decision, corporations, individuals, and unions can give unlimited amounts of money to PACs. In 2006, before the decisive case, these groups raised $5.2 million dollars, but after the case, PACs raised $300 million for the 2012 presidential cycle alone. The activity of these groups is intended to be limited, however, the IRS has done little to enforce these rules (“Political Nonprofits”). This was not always the case; in the 1970s, the Federal Election Commission administered the first public funding program. These funds could be used by eligible presidential candidates to fund their primary and general election campaigns. The political parties could also use the money to finance their nominating conventions. Instead of candidates calling every millionaire and billionaire they know for a donation towards their campaign, the Federal government would give them the money after they agree to the rules set out by the FEC. The 1971 Revenue Act allowed the nominee and not the party to receive public funds for their campaign, but if they took this money, …show more content…
In a recent interview, Steve Israel, a former congressman and former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, discussed the long hours and the multitude of fundraisers that congressmen and women endure day in and day out. Former Congressman Israel says, “All told, over sixteen years I have done, just for my own re-election, 1600 fundraising events” (“Congressional”). That number is equivalent to a fundraising event every 3.65 days. Congressmen and women are spending a significant amount of time with donors who are willing to donate $250-$1000 dollars every three to four days. This is not middle-class Joe going to these events. Million and billionaires are receiving this enormous amount of time with the elected officials. The individual party’s congressional committee can issue dues ranging from $125,000 to $800,000, and these funds go to help other members of the party pay for others close re-election campaigns. But when congressional members are not holding fundraising events, they are calling donors to reach out for more money to cover the cost of a campaign and political party dues. As Congressional Committee Chairman, Steven Israel’s duties were to encourage other members of Congress to reach their dues goals through daily calls to donors. He described the procedure of a session in the Congressional Call Center in the
Dark money is becoming a largely used phrase for the money that is donated to political nonprofit groups, 501(c)(4)s, and this money comes without a name tag. These politically active nonprofits are not required to give the names of donors or how much any individual donor gives. With the Citizens United decision, corporations, individuals, and unions can give unlimited amounts of money to PACs. In 2006, before the decisive case, these groups raised $5.2 million dollars, but after the case, PACs raised $300 million for the 2012 presidential cycle alone. The activity of these groups is intended to be limited, however, the IRS has done little to enforce these rules (“Political Nonprofits”). This was not always the case; in the 1970s, the Federal Election Commission administered the first public funding program. These funds could be used by eligible presidential candidates to fund their primary and general election campaigns. The political parties could also use the money to finance their nominating conventions. Instead of candidates calling every millionaire and billionaire they know for a donation towards their campaign, the Federal government would give them the money after they agree to the rules set out by the FEC. The 1971 Revenue Act allowed the nominee and not the party to receive public funds for their campaign, but if they took this money, …show more content…
In a recent interview, Steve Israel, a former congressman and former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, discussed the long hours and the multitude of fundraisers that congressmen and women endure day in and day out. Former Congressman Israel says, “All told, over sixteen years I have done, just for my own re-election, 1600 fundraising events” (“Congressional”). That number is equivalent to a fundraising event every 3.65 days. Congressmen and women are spending a significant amount of time with donors who are willing to donate $250-$1000 dollars every three to four days. This is not middle-class Joe going to these events. Million and billionaires are receiving this enormous amount of time with the elected officials. The individual party’s congressional committee can issue dues ranging from $125,000 to $800,000, and these funds go to help other members of the party pay for others close re-election campaigns. But when congressional members are not holding fundraising events, they are calling donors to reach out for more money to cover the cost of a campaign and political party dues. As Congressional Committee Chairman, Steven Israel’s duties were to encourage other members of Congress to reach their dues goals through daily calls to donors. He described the procedure of a session in the Congressional Call Center in the