Campaign Reforms

POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS HAVE evolved over the past 200 years into complicated networks complete with sophisticated polling strategies, sleek advertising, and large numbers of campaign consultants. There has been considerable discussion on the need to address campaign reform, especially following the 2000 presidential election between Bush (R-TX) and Gore (D-TN), as evidenced by the creation of the National Commission on Election Reform chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, along with Senator Howard Baker and Special Counsel to the White House Lloyd Cutler. One attempt to reform campaigns was through passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act (enacted March 27, 2002).

All campaign reform proposals carry with them a certain degree of graciousness and gallantry: create a level playing field for all political candidates regardless of their socioeconomic status, encourage candidates who otherwise would not seek elected office to weigh their options, eliminate corruption and the appearance of illegal activity, and make elections open to all individuals, not just those belonging to special interest groups.

The passage of McCain-Feingold was not Congress's first attempt to address campaign finance issues. While reforms had been tinkered with for years, due in part to public outcries over political campaign methodologies, the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) brought the issue to the forefront. Specifically, FECA sought to limit the involvement and influence of wealthy supporters in the campaign, to regulate campaign spending, and to require all candidates to disclose campaign finances. Following the campaign finance abuses of the 1972 presidential election, FECA was subsequently amended to address levels of monetary campaign support provided by individuals, Political Action Committees (PACs), and political parties. In addition, the amendments established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and allowed for public funding of elections by taxpayers, administered by the FEC.

Through the process of judicial review (Buckley v. Valeo 1976), the Supreme Court upheld the amended version of FECA, but did not uphold the provisions of the law that limited an individual's expenditures, or overall campaign expenditures, or the issue of an individual candidate's money for campaign purposes. Congress immediately made additional amendments to FECA in 1976 to address the concerns expressed in Buckley v. Valeo and to help administer the law [Page 84]through the FEC. Two major issues began to surface in the campaign finance reform debate: the influence of PACs in the election process, and the rising costs associated with campaigning. By 2000, the aggregate spending in all congressional campaigns had exceeded $1 billion and PAC contributions to congressional campaigns had reached almost $200 million. The FEC also showed that costs associated with winning a Senate seat in 2000 had more than quadrupled, while costs for securing a House seat had more than tripled over the previous 18 years.

The proliferation and influence of PACs caused alarm. Hundreds of special interest groups and PACs began to campaign and contribute to political candidates, often without the candidate's knowledge. Known as issue advocacy ads, corporations, special interest groups and PACs would endorse candidates, disavow opponents, and support or introduce legislation through the use of the media. Many candidates, not wanting to be viewed as beholden to special interest, countered by initiating candidate-centered campaigns, but they had little or no effect on slowing down PACs and special issue groups. Adding controversy to a problem already getting out of control was the use of soft money, or money for which regulations are limited. Political parties, in an attempt to draw attention away from candidates accepting money from PACs and special interest groups, received those funds in the form of soft money. From 1991 to 2000, soft money raised by Democrats rose from $36.3 million to more than $245 million, while Republicans saw their soft money ledgers increase from $49.8 million to more than $249 million.

...