Campaign finance reform and policy implications

¶ … voters in the United States feel campaign finance reform is a necessity. They see candidates for elected offices being curried by special interest groups. Voters fear, with some justification, that money may corrupt a candidate who is elected using special interest money to finance the campaign, and not keep the voters' needs foremost. Politicians have acknowledged that they have until recently spent an inordinate amount of time phoning businesses, organizations such as labor groups, and individuals for donations. It seems obvious that people donate to the candidates they feel will help their personal political interests most strongly. Very recently it became known by the general public that Enron, a company which went bankrupt after participating in questionable energy deals that cost many taxpayers a great deal of money, donated to a number of political campaigns. Many voters suspected that they received special favors in return for that money.

The question for most people is not whether we need campaign reform but how best to do it. The recent campaign law that took effect on November 6 is already being challenged on constitutional grounds. The new law bans the use of "soft money," money donated by businesses and corporations as well as wealthy individuals. It also imposes restrictions on advertising.

The challengers assert that the new law violates the first amendment of the Constitution, which states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The wording is deceptively simple, and at first, the reader might not see how the first amendment applies to campaign finance. However, those who donate the money argue that giving money to the candidate of their choice is one way of expressing their freedom of speech. In addition, some see restrictions on ads as infringing on freedom of speech as well. They argue that speech, donating money and running ads are all multiple ways of speaking one's political opinion. Another criticism of this law stems from some of the uses of the soft money at the local level, which was used to encourage all people to register to vote, and to vote on Election Day. Critics say that even this neutral use of such money will be banned by this law. This suggests that the law violates the Constitution by reaching to far into state and local law.