Campaign Finance Spending You Decide Campaign Finance

Campaign Finance Spending

You decide

Campaign finance spending reform

For many years, campaign finance reform was an important 'talking point' amongst populist Democratic and Republican senators alike, cumulating in the McCain-Feingold Act. The Act placed spending limits upon 'soft money' (money not directly given to a candidate or party) as well as banned corporations from financing advertisements designed to influence voting about particular issues before an election (Gitell 2003). The Act was intended to reduce the influence of PACs (political action committees) upon politics by limiting their scope in terms of the amount of contributions they could accept and how they disseminated information. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Citizen's United effectively nullified the most significant portions of the Act, declaring them unconstitutional limits upon free speech.

In the landmark decision, "the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. It found no compelling government interest for prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make election-related independent expenditures" (Sullivan & Adams 2010). The ruling made it very easy for large entities such as corporations to make contributions to campaigns without restrictions. According to Chief Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority: "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" (Hasen 2011). The decision specifically declared that bans upon 'soft money' contribution to PACs or other entities could not be regulated, so long as they were not directly made to the candidate him or herself.

The ruling seems baffling, to a layperson: the idea that corporations are 'persons' seems like a necessary fiction under the law for business and taxation purposes (to protect shareholders invested in a corporation from liability and to tax corporate profits). However, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision implies that corporations are very literally 'persons' entitled to speech. This tips the balance in favor of large, powerful corporations who can afford to back powerful political candidates which support the interests of industries, not the interests of the larger population. The Court decision flies in the face of common sense: "If the court believes that the government may limit a $3,000 contribution to a candidate because of its corruptive potential, how could it not believe that the government has a similar anticorruption interest in limiting $3 million spent in an independent effort to elect that candidate? Would a federal candidate not feel much more beholden to the big spender than the more modest contributor?" (Hasen 2011). In other words, the decision merely serves to empower shadowy organizations not specifically affiliated with the candidate that may be even more ideologically rigid than the person they are trying to elect.