Campaign Finance Reform - Good enough as is, or woefully inadequate?

Money has always spoken

Money's influence on the elections of our government representatives has been a troublesome issue going back to post-Civil War times. Various attempts to curb the blatant campaign abuses had little real effect until well into second half of the 20th Century, however, when the fallout from the Watergate scandal and its accompanying government distrust helped push groups like Common Cause into the national spotlight and spark real momentum toward campaign reform.

The Federal Election Campaign Act

In 1979 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, the first such legislation with real teeth to attempt to regulate and document campaign contributions and expenditures in federal elections. In succeeding years, however, the Federal Elections Committee allowed many exemptions and loopholes to expand the uses of so-called "soft money" - funds which are otherwise prohibited by law for use in campaign activity. That is, funds from individuals in excess of contribution limits or funds from corporate or union treasuries. By the election of 2000, both Democratic and Republican parties were spending $240-250 million in soft money during the election cycle. In the age of mass media, much of that money is spent on ads, particularly television ads.

Recent efforts at reform

After years of debate and stalling, Congress moved to again reform campaign finance by passing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which became effective on Nov. 6, 2002. The BCRA made some dramatic changes at both federal and state levels. Among the most controversial are its distinction between "campaign ads" (those which openly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate) and "issue ads," and its restriction that no broadcast advertisement may depict a candidate within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election if it is targeted to the voting constituency of that candidate. This is highly unpopular with many politicians and many advocacy groups, causing such unlikely bedfellows as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association to line up on the same side in opposition. Lawsuits designed to defeat BCRA wound their way all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which in 2003 issued a ruling that let stand the majority of BCRA's provisions, including the two mentioned above.

Where do we go from here?

Many have proposed over the years that federal elections, at least, become publicly financed. Thanks to the FECA of 1979, since then there has been a provision on every individual's tax return Form 1040 to designate $1 of his tax payment to a fund established for that purpose. While federal candidates who qualify make use of those funds, they still pale in comparison to the money raised from contributions and candidates' personal fortunes.