Select Two of the Obstacles. for Each Obstacle Provide Both of the Following

Meredith Mann

2000 #4

Question: The three obstacles listed below have made it difficult for Congress to enact significant campaign finance reform.

• **Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• **Soft money
• Incumbency

Select two of the obstacles. For each obstacle provide both of the following.

(a)A brief description of the obstacle

(b)An explanation of how the obstacle has made it difficult for Congress to enact significant campaign finance reform.

Answer:

The first attempts of businesses trying to influence elections can be dated back to the Jacksonian era. Though Campaign Finance reform has been going on since 1867, significant reform didn’t occur until the 1970’s, fueled by the infamous Watergate scandal. With the creation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and the Federal Election Committee, regulations were placed on the amount of contributions given to campaigns by individuals and corporationsineffort to hinder the greater influence of the investors over the broad electorate. But, obstacles, like the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeoand soft money,have made it difficult for Congress to enact significant campaign finance reform.

Sub-topic 1: The use of soft money to fund campaign elections has made it harder for Congress to enact significant campaign finance reform.

(a)Soft money is unlimited donations given to national parties to fund campaigns.

• Unlike hard money, soft money has virtually no restrictions such as the ability for corporations and unions to give directly from their treasuries and giving them a way to get around limitations that restrict donor’s power over elections.

(b)Soft money creates a loophole despite attempts by campaign finance reform to limit the effect and influence money has over elections.

• In 2000, soft money raised by Democrats and Republicans made up almost fifty percent of the money raised by each party, amounting up to nearly half a billion dollars by the end of the election.
• By contributing to their candidate, donors expect to have more control in politics with policies and enactments to be in their favor.
• On the other hand, Congress, along with the FECA and FEC, tried to take business out of politics because of the threat of corruption and unevenness of voting.
• But, the significant amount of soft money floating around campaigns halted their effectiveness at campaign reform.

Sub-topic 2: The court case of Buckley v. Valeo made it difficult for Congress to enact significant campaign finance reform.

(a)In Buckley v. Valeo, the court upheld the FECA restrictions but ruled that restricting private money donations violated the first amendment’s freedom of speech and expression.

• This decision allowed people and groups to make unlimited independent expenditures, generating problems and loopholes in the disputed law.
• The government worried that people with wealth could overpower the average person’s vote.
• Philosopher John Rawls noted that the court’s verdict "runs the risk of endorsing the view that fair representation is representation according to the amount of influence effectively exerted."

(b)Buckley v. Valeo set the precedent for analysis of the constitutionality of campaign finance reform.

• This, for obvious reasons, made future reforms, like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(which included a ban on soft money), difficult to uphold.