Political Campaign Finance ReformEssay Preview: Political Campaign Finance ReformReport this essayWith the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.
There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.
After President Nixon and the Watergate controversy in 1971, the United States began to put limits on how much a candidate could receive and spend within a campaign. In order to enforce fairness between candidates, Congress created the Federal Election Committee (FEC), making the government the superior source of funds for Presidential elections. The FEC restricts the amount of money an individual can donate to a candidate and the amount that can be indirectly contributed.
Some would object to these limits because they feel that government money could be better spent on other issues rather then on the campaign and supporters should provide funding for their favorable candidates. Government spending on presidential elections has gone up rapidly as media exposure and touring have become increasingly popular among Presidential hopefuls. However since our government is based on majority rule, minorities with these beliefs are often overpowered. Most people would agree that restrictions by the FEC keep the Presidential election moral and a large amount of support from one group of people would be undemocratic and rebel against the federal system.
Rather than government providing millions of dollars for the campaign and putting harsh restricts on individual donations, I believe that the limits should not be put on the American people but on the candidates themselves. Spending on the campaign has gotten out of control within the last decade. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being spend on mobile campaigns, advertisements, and media exposure. This funding could easily go towards other areas of society, benefiting the very people that the candidates wish to govern. Rather than directing negative attention, I believe that candidates should reach out to the public to gain support. Campaigning for presidency should not be about winning or who raises the most money. Presidency should be about protecting and caring for the American people. The conduct of campaigns
The Huffington Post: Do you see any new federal law regulating your campaign or campaign donation?
When the election is over, it’s just like any other election. The rules can simply be reimposed, changes can be made at any time. And, in almost every case, people are still elected to the office that is being held. And, if they don’t like it or wish to change it, the campaign can file a complaint with the state and bring them back, unless one of them is actually held personally liable or in criminal contempt for something they have done. There are plenty of other issues to deal with and many candidates have been fighting over that issue for years. We want people to know that campaign finance reform is a major concern, something that all parties—other than the Republican and Democratic parties—affirm. The issues that are a problem for these campaigns are: How hard are you willing to do, and how long are you willing to do it. What are the political ramifications for a candidate that is willing to do all these things?
But we think we have a problem here. The candidates run on issues of their own initiative; the issues of the political side of things may not have the same value as campaigns.
With the exception of Trump’s campaign being run by a small group of super PACs, a small group of state and local politicians are allowed to run that campaign and run the candidate personally to the highest bidder.
The Washington Post: Have any current laws or legal issues that could have a bearing on the candidates’ ability to hold the office of president been addressed in Senate Bill 1441 or Senate Bill 1023?
While we have no details of what it might look like at this point, the Washington Post has been reporting on federal laws that affect campaign finance reform for a number of years. One issue we have on the list today is the campaign finance reform law passed in 2010 by the House, which had this unfortunate title: “A Campaign Finance Reform Bill.” It passed the Senate but was vetoed by Senator Debbie Stabenow. This year, the Senate passed a similar bill. If passed, the law would eliminate the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) ability to regulate campaign spending. The Senate report noted that the bill also states that “In order not to require candidates to disclose their campaign funds or financial activity, the disclosure of their candidate expenses may be an element of campaign financing.” The Senate report added that, “The requirement would limit the campaign financing available to candidates to less than $400,000 per year.” A spokesperson for the FEC said “If any specific funds are required during the campaign, those funds will be retained and used towards the campaign or expenditures of the candidate until they become public.
In other words, the bill prevents all or part of the FEC from determining campaign spending.”
We could find the bill out for more information at the campaign finance reform website. Our ruling Here is what our staff found. What we found is that even though the law is currently being rewritten, not everything covered under the campaign-finance reform law was ever made public. The most important change that occurred to us from the Senate bill was the end of the requirement that candidates disclose campaign funds or campaign