Arguments Against Campaign Finance Reform

All citizens of the United States have, at one point or another, been taught that America is a nation founded on the principles of a democratic society. Principles that, forged in the crucible of war, endow it citizens with an undeniable right to directly participate in the political process. America’s Forefathers would be profoundly disappointed, however, to learn that the unchecked influence of special interest has sullied the very fabric of United States politics. The Founding Fathers, in spite of their boundless knowledge, had not the foresight to see just how easily monetary influence would try the fortitude of their burgeoning political system. The effects of their unknowingness permeate throughout the United States government; yet still the American people are seemingly unware of – or perhaps altogether unmoved by – the astonishing amount of money being funneled into the political machine, let alone the identities of those making such remarkable donations. A series of wide-sweeping Congressional legislation which champions transparency in all matters of campaign finance is needed if the American electorate is to lift the veil on soft money contributions, exposing the hidden agendas of special interest groups, ultimately staying ahead of the PAC. In order to fully comprehend the extent to which campaign finance law has been distorted, one must first understand the fundamental types of campaign contributions: hard and soft money donations. Candidates seeking federal office are limited to financing their campaigns with money given to them for the explicit purpose of campaigning. Such contributions, known as hard money donations, are to be made directly to the candidate. The Federal Election Commission, whose purpose according to its official website is to “administer and enforce the statute that governs the financing of federal elections” (FEC.gov), strictly scrutinizes hard money donations. The problem of ‘purchasing politicians’ faced by the American electorate, interestingly enough, does not stem from hard money donations. The overall amount of hard money a person is allowed to donate to a particular candidate is a relatively meager sum. Bill Mears, CNN’s Supreme Court Producer, wrote that “federal campaign law limits [hard money] contributions made to any federal candidate at just $2,500 per election … while also limiting contributions to national parties to just $30,800 per election” (Mears). While those may appear to be staggering figures, hard money donations amount to little more than pocket change when directly compared to donations made from soft money, the latter form of campaign contribution. By and large, what the American electorate fails to realize is simply how much soft money donations influence their federal elections. When the 96th Congress voted in 1979 to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act, they failed to recognize what the implications of allowing “organizations to give unlimited amounts of money to …show more content…
The most recent argument against campaign finance reform stems from Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which “addresses the question whether federal campaign-finance law limits the right of the activist group Citizens United to distribute … a documentary entitled Hillary: The Movie” (Smith). United States Deputy Solicitor Malcom Stewart argued before the court that certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – more commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act –could in fact be constitutionally applied to limit … forms of speech” (Smith) such as books and DVDs that included “one line of candidate advocacy”